w 


-tflMt/MW 
& itft- 


— 


a MUuIttlS 


PETITION 


TO 


Theodore  Roosevelt, 
President  of  the  United  States, 


i 


BV 


The  Receivers  and  Shippers 
’%  BssoDlalion 


OF 


CINCINNATI,  OHIO. 


■12  Mrjg 


THE  PRESIDENT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES: 


Sjr: 

The  Petitioner  is  The  Receivers’  and  Shippers’  Associa- 
tion of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  with  a membership  of  over  two  hundred 
and  forty  (240)  individuals,  firms  and  corporations,  doing  business 
in  the  City  of  Cincinnati  and  vicinity,  and  including  also  in  its 
membership  the  following  business  organizations  of  Cincinnati; 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce. 

The  Business  Men’s  Club. 

The  Manufacturers’  Club. 

The  Lumbermen’s  Club. 

The  Pork  Packers’  & Slaughterers’  Association. 

The  Cincinnati  Metal  Trades  Association. 

The  Carriage  Makers’  Club. 

The  Live  Stock  Commission  Merchants’  Association. 

The  Cincinnati  Furniture  Exchange. 

The  Cincinnati  Produce  Exchange. 

The  Cincinnati  Paint  Club. 

The  Pine  Lumber  Dealers’  Association. 

The  Cincinnati  Branch — National  League  Commission  Mer- 
chants. 

The  Common  Carriers  especially  complained  of  are : 

The  Southern  Railway  Company,  a corporation  organized 
...  under  the  laws  of  Virginia;  and  the  railroad  corporations  con- 
trolled by  the  Southern  Railway  Company,  and  hereinafter  specif- 
0 ically  named. 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  a corporation  organized 
under  the  laws  of  Connecticut;  and  the  railroad  corporations  con- 
trolled by  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  and  hereinafter 
specifically  named. 

Complaint  is  also  made  against: 

The  St.  Louis  & San  Francisco  Railroad. 


3 8~  6' 

Z'OCTAs, 

The  New  Orleans  & Northeastern  Eailroad. 

The  Norfolk  & Western  Railway. 

The  Illinois  Central  Railroad. 

The  Seaboard  Air  Line  Railroad. 

The  Central  of  Georgia  Railroad. 

The  grounds  of  complaint  are  : 

1.  That  The  Southern  Railway  Company  is  a combination  in 
restraint  of  trade  and  commerce  between  the  States,  within  the 
meaning  of  Section  1 of  the  Statute  of  July  2,  1890,  commonly 
known  as  the  Anti-Trust  Act;  and  is  an  attempt  to  monopolize 
and  a monopoly  of  trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of 
Section  2 of  said  statute. 

2.  That  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company  is  a combination 
in  restraint  of  trade  and  commerce  between  the  States,  within  the 
meaning  of  Section  1 of  the  Statute  of  July  2,  1890,  commonly 
known  as  the  Anti-Trust  Act;  and  is  an  attempt  to  monopolize 
and  a monopoly  of  trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of 
Section  2 of  said  statute. 

3.  That  The  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  is  a 
combination  in  restrain  of  trade  and  commerce  between  the  States, 
within  the  meaning  of  Section  1 of  the  Statute  of  July  2,  1890, 
commonly  known  as  the  Anti-Trust  Act;  and  is  an  attempt  to 
monopolize  and  a monopoly  of  trade  and  commerce,  within  the 
meaning  of  Section  2 of  said  statute. 

4.  That  The  Southeastern  Freight  Association  is  a com- 
bination in  restraint  of  trade  and  commerce  between  the  States, 
within  the  meaning  of  Section  1 of  the  Statute  of  July  2,  1890, 
commonly  known  as  the  Anti-Trust  Act;  and  is  an  attempt  to 
monopolize  and  a monopoly  of  trade  and  commerce,  within  the 
meaning  of  Section  2 of  said  statute. 

5.  That  the  Joint  Agreement  between  the  Southeastern 
Mississippi  Valley  Association  and  the  Southeastern  Freight 
Association  is  a contract  in  restraint  of  trade  and  commerce, 
resulting  in  a combination  and  conspiracy  of  the  parties  to  and  the 
beneficiaries  of  such  agreements,  in  restrain  of  trade  and  com- 
merce, within  the  meaning  of  Section  1 of  the  Anti-Trust  law; 
and  is  an  attempt  to  monopolize  and  a monopoly  in  restraint  of 
trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of  Section  of  2 of  said 
statute. 

6.  That  on  December  1st  and  2d,  1904,  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel,  a meeting  was  held  by  the 
officials  of  the  following  named  railroads: 


3 


The  Southern  Railway  Company  and  the  following  named 
Companies  controlled  by  it,  viz. : 

The  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  and  Texas  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, The  Alabama  Great  Southern  Railway  Company,  and  The 
Mobile  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company. 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  and  the  following  named 
Companies  controlled  by  it,  viz. : 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company,  the  Louisville  and 
Nashville  Railroad  Company,  The  Nashville,  Chattanooga  and  St. 
Louis  Railway  Company,  The  Atlanta  and  West  Point  Railroad 
Company,  The  Western  of  Alabama  Railroad  Company,  and  The 
Georgia  Railroad  Company. 

The  St.  Louis  and  San  Francisco  Railroad  Company,  The  New 
Orleans  and  Northeastern  Railroad  Company,  The  Norfolk  and 
Western  Railway  Company,  The  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Com- 
pany, The  Central  of  Georgia  Railway  Company,  and  The  Seaboard 
Air  Line  Railroad  Company. 

That  at  said  meeting  the  above  named  Companies  combined  and 
conspired  to  make  and  publish  simultaneously  classified  rates  of 
freight  and  commodity  freight  rates  from  Ohio  and  Mississippi 
River  crossings  to  various  points  in  the  Southeast;  particularly  to 
points  in  the  State  of  Georgia — and  conspired  and  agreed  to 
publish  simultaneously  classified  rates  of  freight  and  commodity 
freight  rates  from  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Boston  and 
interior  Eastern  points  to  various  points  in  the  Southeast;  partic- 
ularly to  points  in  the  State  of  Georgia  (a  more  detailed  statement 
in  regard  to  which  will  hereinafter  be  more  specifically  set  forth). 
That  the  action  of  the  above  named  roads  is  a combination  and 
c-onspirarcy,  resulting  in  contracts  and  agreements  in  restraint  of 
trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of  Section  1 of  the 
Statute  of  July  2,  1890,  commonly  known  as  the  Anti-Trust 
act  ; and  is  an  attempt  to  monopolize  and  a monopoly  of  trade 
and  commerce  among  the  several  States,  within  the  meaning  of 
Section  2 of  said  statute. 

7.  That  the  combinations  referred  to  in  subdivisions  1 to  6 
inclusive  are  not  only  violations  of  the  Anti-Trust  law,  but  they 
seriously  discriminate  against  the  cominercial  interests  of  the 
Northern  and  Western  States  in  favor  of  the  Eastern  States  in 
their  trade  relations  with  the  Southern  States,  have  seriously  dam- 
aged the  commercial  interests,  of  said  States,  and  if  permitted  to 
continue  will  even  more  seriously  damage  said  interests. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  RAILWAY  COMPANY, 
SHOWING  THE  LINES  OF  RAILROAD  OWNED 
AND  CONTROLLED  BY  IT. 


The  following  history  of  the  Southern  Railway  Company, 
showing  its  origin  and  development  into  a colossal  combination, 
completely  controlling  the  trade  and  commerce  of  a large  portion 
of  the  Southern  States,  is  taken  in  the  main  from  Poor’s  Manual 
of  Railroads,  an  authority  whose  statements  are  accepted  as  correct 
by  all  persons  interested  in  railroad  properties. 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  was  chartered  by  the  State 
of  Virginia  on  February  20,  1894,  and  organized  June  18,  1894. 
It  immediately  began  acquiring  control  of  railroads  in  the  South, 
and  by  June  30,  189G,  it  owned  and  controlled  the  following  rail- 
road mileage : 


MILES. 


Washington,  D.  C.,  to  Richmond,  Va.,  via  Danville,  Va., 

and  Charlotte,  N.  C.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga.  (about) 

Bristol,  Tenn.,  via  Knoxville  and  Chattanooga  to  At- 
lanta, Ga. ; thence  via  Birmingham,  Ala.,  to  Green- 
ville, Miss 

Rome,  Ga.,  to  Lauderdale,  Miss 

Atlanta,  Ga.,  to  Brunswick,  Ga.  (about) 


790.00 


852.00 
288.20 

350.00 


2,280.20 

Various  other  lines  owned,  leased,  or  controlled 2.374.13 


Total  length  of  all  lines  Southern  Railway  System,  June 

30,  1896  4,654.33 


A more  particular  statement  of  the  names  of  the  railroads 
acquired,  the  territory  traversed  by  them,  and  the  means  by  which 
they  were  acquired,  will  be  found  in  Poor’s  Manual  of  Railroads 
for  1897,  pages  761  to  776  inclusive. 

During  the  fiscal  year  of  1897  this  Company  acquired  by 
purchase,  lease  or  other  arrangement,  the  Georgia  Midland  Rail- 
road Company,  and  the  Strasburg  and  Harrisonburg  Branch  of  the 
Virginia  Midland  Railway. 

In  August,  1897,  the  Virginia  Midland  Railway  Company  was 
purchased  by  the  Southern  Railway  Company,  and  in  June,  1898, 
was  merged  into  it  as  a part  of  its  system. 

In  June,  1898,  the  Knoxville,  Cumberland  Gap  and  Louisville 
Railway  Company  was  also  merged  into  the  Southern  Railway 
Company. 


In  February,  1898,  the  Hartwell  Railroad  Company  was  ac- 
quired. 

On  February  26,  1898,  the  ownership  of  The  Memphis  and 
Charleston  Railway  Company  was  acquired. 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1899,  the  Company 
acquired  the  following  railroads: 

The  Carolina  & Cumberland  Gap  Railway  Co. 

The  Richmond  & Mecklenburg  Railroad, 

The  Mobile  & Birmingham  Railroad. 

The  South  Carolina  & Georgia  Railroad. 

The  Atlantic  & Yadkin  Valley  Railroad. 

The  Carolina  Midland  Railroad  Co. 

The  Seviern  & Knoxville  Railroad  Co. 

The  Northern  Alabama  Railroad  Co. 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  and  the  Louisville  and  Nash- 
ville Railroad  Company  also  purchased  for  joint  account  the 
Birmingham  Railroad  property  from  The  Tennessee  Coal  and  Iron 
Company. 

During  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1900,  this  Company 
acquired  The  Atlantic  and  Danville  Railroad  Company,  The  North- 
eastern Railroad  Company  of  Georgia,  The  Sumter  and  Wateree 
Railroad,  and  the  Lockhart  Railroad  Company. 

In  December,  1900,  the  control  of  The  Louisville,  Evansville 
and  St.  Louis  Consolidated  Railroad  Company  was  acquired. 

In  April,  1901,  the  control  of  The  Mobile  & Ohio  Railroad 
Company  was  acquired  by  the  purchase  of  90  per  cent,  of  its 
capital  stock  and  more  than  70  per  cent,  of  its  general  mortgage 
bonds. 

In  1901,  the  Company  purchased  the  majority  of  the  capital 
stock  of  the  Augusta  Southern  Railroad. 

During  the  year  ending  June  30,  1902,  there  were  added  to 
the  lines  operated  by  the  Company  two  sections  of  The  Ensley 
Southern  Railway,  and  the  extension  of  the  former  Knoxville  and 
Augusta  Railroad. 

In  July,  1902,  the  Company  purchased  the  securities 
of  The  Atlanta,  Valdosta  and  Western  Railway  Company,  and 
The  St.  Johns  River  Terminal  Company;  and  on  October  16, 
1902,  the  greater  part  of  The  Atlanta,  Valdosta  and  Western 
Railway  was  conveyed  by  deed  to  The  Georgia  Southern  and  Florida 
Railway  Company. 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  and  The  Cincinnati,  Hamil- 
ton and  Dayton  Railway  Company,  jointly  control  The  Cincinnati, 


New  Orleans  and  Texas  Pacific  Railway  Company.  Lessees  of  The 
Cincinnati  Southern  Railway  ; and  the  President  of  The  Southern 
Railway  Company  is  also  President  of  The  Cincinnati,  New 
Orleans  and  Texas  Pacific  Railway  Company. 

In  1903  The  Southern  Railway  Company  and  The  Louisville 
and  Nashville  Railroad  Company  purchased  for  joint  account  a 
majority  of  the  stock  of  The  Chicago,  Indianapolis  and  Louisville 
Railway  Company  (Monon  Route). 

It  is  possible  that  a careful  examination  of  the  railroads 
owned  and  controlled  by  The  Southern  Railway  Company  will  dis- 
close some  omissions  in  the  foregoing  statement,  but  if  such  be  the 
case,  the  omissions  will  be  supplied  by  the  following  statement 
up  to  June  30,  1903,  and  accompanying  map  taken  from  Poor’s 
Manual  of  Railroads,  1904,  of  the  lines  of  railroads  owned  or  oper- 
ated by  lease  or  other  arrangement  by  The  Southern  Railway  Com- 
pany : 

Lines  of  Railroad  Operated. — Statement  showing  in  detail  the 
mileage  of  the  lines  -operated  by  the  Southern  Railway  Company, 


June  30,  1903 : 

Main  Lines  and  Branches.  miles. 

* Alexandria,  Va.,  to  Greensboro,  N.  C 280.05 

Neapolis  to  West  Point.  Ya 179.00 

Charlotte,  N.  C.,  to  Augusta,  Ga 190.49 

Columbia  to  Greenville,  S.  C 145.52 

Salisbury,  N.  C.,  to  Morristown,  Tenn 231.37 

Bristol  to  Chattanooga,  Tenn 241.55 

Stevenson,  Ala.,  to  Memphis,  Tenn 271.47 

Tuscumbia  to  Florence,  Ala 7.60 

Moscow  to  Somerville,  Tenn 13.10 

Ooltewah  Junction,  Tenn.,  to  Brunswick,  Ga 409.00 

Austell,  Ga.,  to  State  Line,  Miss 260.70 

I State  Line,  Ala.,  to  Greenville,  Miss 179.10 

tStoneville  to  Percy,  Miss 23.20 

tltta  Bena  to  Webb,  Miss 34.60 

Atlanta  Junction,  Ga.,  to  York,  Ala 270.50 

Alexandria  to  Bluemont,  Ya 54.55 

Union  Street  Branch,  Alexandria,  Ya 1.60 

Manassas  Junction  to  Harrisonburg,  Ya 112.89 

Calverton  to  Warrenton,  Ya 8.90 

Franklin  Junction  to  Pittsville,  Ya 7.10 

Manchester  Junction  to  Rocketts,  Ya 1.00 

Belle  Isle  Junction  to  Belle  Isle,  Ya 0.70 

Granite,  Ya.,  to  Westham  Granite  Quarry 3.00 

Clarksville,  Ya..  to  Durham,  N.  C 55.10 

Oxford  to  Henderson,  N.  C 12.75 

Pomona  to  Wilkesboro,  N.  C 100.15 


Ashville  (Murphy  Junction)  to  Murphy,  N.  C.  ..  122.40 


Charlotte  to  Taylorville,  N.  C 

Hodges  to  Abbeville,  S.  C 

Belton  to  Anderson,  S.  C 

Aiken  to  Edgefield,  S.  C 

Embreeville  Junction  to  Embreeville,  Tenn 

Rogersville  Junction  to  Rogersville,  Tenn 

Clinton  to  Harriman  Junction,  Tenn 

K.  0.  &.  . Jc.,  Knoxville  to  Cumberland  Gap, 

Tenn.  . . . 

Knoxville  Belt  

Ore  Bed  Junction  to  Watts  Mines,  Tenn 

Knoxville  to  Welland,  Tenn 

Briceville  “Y”  to  Panola,  Tenn 

Oliver  Springs  to  Big  Mountain,  Tenn 

Cleveland,  Tenn.,  to  Cohutta,  Ga 

North  Rome,  Ga.,  to  Attalla,  Ala 

Atlanta  to  Fort  Valley.  Ga 

Cochran  to  Hawkins ville,  Ga 

Dock  Jc.  to  Turtle  River  Docks.  Brunswick,  Ga. . 

Villa  Rica,  Ga.,  to  Mines 

Howell  to  Belt  Junction,  Ga 

Marion  Junction  to  Akron,  Ala 

Wiilton  to  Mobile  Junction,  Ala 

Gurnee  J unction  to  Blocton,  Ala 

Woodlawn  to  End  Belt  Road,  Bess°mer,  Ala 

North  Birmingham  to  Coalburg,  Ala 

Coalburg  to  Mines  9 and  D.,  Ala 

Cardiff  to  Brazil  Mines,  Ala 

Jefferson  to  Blossburg,  Ala 

Offerman  to  Hooper  Mines,  Ala 

America  Junction  to  America,  Ala 

Oakman  to  Coal  Valley,  Ala 

Patton  Junction  to  Patton,  Ala 

Corona  to  No.  3 Mines,  Ala 

Littleton,  Ala.,  to  Coal  Mines 

Castleman  Junction  to  Castleman,  Ala 

Spring  Garden.  Ala.,  to  Mines 

Lulu  to  Athens,  Ga 

Cave  Springs  to  Lopez,  Ga 

North  Augusta,  S.  C..  Branch 

Ardella  to  Belle  Ellen,  Ala 


Seymour  to  Coal  Mines,  Ala 

Pinners  Point,  Va.,  to  N.  & C.  R.  R.  Conn 

* Louisville  to  Lexington,  Kv 

*Lawrenceburg  to  Burgin,  Ky 

*Versailles  to  Georgetown,  Ky 

Venice  and  Carondelet  Belt,  E.  St.  Louis,  111..  . . 

Belleville  Junction  to  Belleville,  111 

E.  St.  Louis.  111.,  to  State  Line,  Tnd 

E.  St.  Louis.  Madison  and  Granite  Citv  Branch, 
E.  St.  Louis,  111 r 


65.65 

11.58 

9.98 

23.57 

13.00 

16.00 
30.44 


65.50 
5.37 

3.40 
26.21 

4.94 

3.26 

14.80 

61.60 

102.30 

10.10 

1.80 

2.92 

3.30 

53.00 

34.00 
14.30 

20.50 

6.40 
2.60 
1.60 
1.91 
0.60 
2.20 
2.20 
1.10 
0.90 
3.50 
3.63 

4.41 
38.93 

5.23 
1.65 
2.90 

2.24 
0.36 

80.12 

25.97 

16.74 

6.86 

1.14 

146.77 


2.40 


8 


ttState  Line,  111.,  to  New  Albany,  Ind 118.28 

tt Jasper  to  Evansville,  Ind 54.22 

ttRockport  Junction  to  Rockport,  Ind 16.15 

tf Lincoln  City  to  Cannelton,  Ind 22.72 


Total  main  lines  and  branches 4,388.94 

Less  not  operated,  Anderson  Branch 9.98 


Main  line  and  branches  operated 4,378.96 

Controlled  by  Oivnership  of  Securities. 

A. — Leased  (933.95  miles)  : 

MILES. 

Southern  Railway,  Carolina  Division  (714.42  miles) — « 

Cayee  to  Hardeeville,  S.  C 128.63 

Perry  to  Sievern,  S.  C 7.64 

Charleston,  S.  C.,  to  Augusta,  Ga 136.91 

Branchville  to  Columbia,  S.  C 67.10  * 

Kingsville,  S.  C.,  to  Marion,  N.  C 208.50 

Blacksburg  to  Gaffney,  S.  C 10.50 

Burton  Branch,  S.  C 4.60 

Taylor’s  Mill  Branch,  S.  C 1.00 

Biitmore,  N.  C.,  to  Spartanburg  Junct.,  S.  C.  . . . 65.90 

Spartanburg  to  Alston,  S.  C 67.83 

Sumter  Junction  to  Sumter,  S.  C 15.81 

Mobile  and  Birmingham  Railroad — 

Marion  Junction  to  Mobile,  Ala 150.35 

Richmond  and  Mecklenburg  Railroad — 

Kevsville  to  Clarksville,  Ya 31.30 

Georgia  Midland  Railay — 

McDonough  to  Columbus,  Ga 97.88 

B. — Not  leased  (465.16  miles). 

MILES. 

State  University  Railroad — 

University  to  Chapel  Hill,  N.  C 10.20  x 

North  Carolina  Midland  Railroad — 

Mooresville  to  Winston-Salem,  N.  C 53.52 

High  Point,  Randleman  Asheboro  & Southern  R.  R. — 

High  Point  to  Ashboro,  N.  C 26.80 

Yadkin  Railroad  (43.70  miles)1 — 

Salisburg  to  Norwood,  N.  C 41.00 

Union  Copper  Mines  Branch,  N.  C 2.70 

Elberton  Air  lane  Railroad — 

Toccao  to  Elberton,  Ga 50.60 

Knoxville  and  Ohio  Railroad  (69.32  miles)  — 

Knoxville  to  Jellico,  Tenn 65.30 

Coal  Creek  to  Cambria,  Tenn 4.02 

Sievern  and  Knoxville  Railroad — 

Batesburg  to  Sievern,  S.  C 17.44  ^ 


9 


Atlantic  and  Yadkin  Railroad  (165.12  miles)  — 

Sanford  to  Mt.  Airy,  Y.  C 130.95 

Climax  to  Ramseur,  Y.  C 18.74 

Stokesdale  to  Madison,  Y.  C 11.39 

Greensboro  to  Proximity  Mills,  N*.  C 2.02 

Mt.  Airy  to  Granite  Quarry,  S.  C 2.02 

Ensley  Southern  Railroad  (28.46  miles)  — 

Ensley,  Ala.,  to  near  Warrior  River 19.22 

Parrish,  Ala.,  to  Year  Little  Warrior  River 9.24 


Total  controlled  1,459.11 


Total  main  line  and  branches 4,388.94 

Total  controlled 1,459.11 

# 

Total  covered  by  Southern  Railway  Securities . . . 5,848.05 
Leased  Lines. 

MILES. 

Yorth  Carolina  Railroad  (224.34  miles)  — 

Goldsboro  to  Chalotte,  Y.  C 222.44 

Caraleigh  Junction  to  Caraleigh  Mills,  Y.  C 1.90 

Atlanta  and  Charlotte  Air  Line  Railway — 

Charlotte,  Y.  C.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga 267.30 

Eranklin  and  Pittsylvania  Railroad — 

Pitts ville  to  Rocky  Mount,  Va 29.90 

Atlantic  and  Danville  Railroad  (282.16  miles)  — 

Danville  to  West  Yorfolk,-  Va 205.10 

James  River  Junction  to  Cleremont  Wharf,  Va. 

(Y.  G.) 50.36 

Hitchcock  Junction  to  Hitchcock  Mills,  Va 8.33 

Buffalo  Junction  to  Buffalo  Lithia  Springs,  Va..  3.90 

Shoulders  Hill  to  Shops,  Va 10.02 

Virgilina,  Va.,  to  Mines,  Y.  C.  (Y.  & S.  C.  R.R.)  4.45 

Lockhart  Railroad — 

Lockhart  Junction  to  Lockhart,  S.  C 11.81 


Total  leased 817.51 

Operated  Under  Agreement. 

MILES. 

Roswell  Railroad  (12.55  miles)  — 

Chamblee  to  Roswell,  Ga 9.80 

Morgan  Falls  Branch,  Ga 2.75 

Trackage  Rights. 

MILES. 

Baltimore  and  Potomac  Railroad — 

Washington,  D.  C.,  to  South  end  Long  Bridge.  . 2.05 

Washington  Southern  Railroad — 

South  end  Long  Bridge  to  Alexandria,  Va 4.90 


IO 

Central  of  Georgia  Railway  (4.04)  miles — 

Peters  Street  to  Union  Depot,  Atlanta,  Ga 0.67 

Central  Jc.  to  W.  Broad  St.,  Savannah 3.37 

Augusta  & Summerville  E.  E.  Entrance  to  Union 

Depot,  Augusta,  Ga 0.51 

Georgia  Railroad  (1.10  miles)  — 

Entrance  to  Union  Depot,  Augusta,  Ga 0.23 

Entrance  to  Union  Depot,  Atlanta,  Ga 0.87 

Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad — 

W.  & A.  Crossing  to  Dalton,  Ga 0.20 

Alabama  Great  Southern  Railroad  (46.13  miles)  — 

Woodlawn  to  Birmingham,  Ala 3.60 

Birmingham  to  Mobile  Junction,  Ala 14.97 

York,  Ala.,  to  Meridian,  Miss 27.16 

Central  Pass.  Sta.  to  Louisa  St.,  Chattanooga.  . . 0.40 

Louisville  and  Nashville  Railroad  (15.69  miles)  — 

Entrance  to  Union  Depot.  Birmingham,  Ala.  . . . 0.52 

L.  & N.  Junct.  to  Union  Depot,  Florence,  Ala.  . . 0.20 

Cumberland  Gap,  Tenn.,  to  Middlesboro,  Ky.  . . . 4.41 

Middlesborough  Belt  and  Bennetts  Fork  Branch.  9.81 
Lipscomb  St.  to  Passenger  Sta.,  Mobile,  Ala.  . . . 0.75 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  (326.82  miles)  — 

Pinners  Point,  Va.,  to  Tarboro,  N.  C 99.50 

Tarboro  to  Selma,  N.  C 54.88 

Hardeeville,  S.  C.,  to  Central  Junct.,  Ga 16.70 

Four-Mile  Crossing  to  Brunswick  Union  Sta.,  Ga.  2.94 

Central  Junction,  Ga.,  to  Jacksonville,  Fla 152.08 

Entrance  to  Union  Station,  Savannah,  Ga 0.72 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  and  St.  Louis  Railway — 

Chattanooga,  Tenn..  to  Stevenson,  Ala 38.00 

Jacksonville  Terminal  Company — 

Entrance  to  Depot,  Jacksonville,  Fla 1.47 

St.  Johns  River  Terminal  Companv — 

Near  Grand  River  Crossing,  Fla.,  to  Bay  Street 

Freight  Depot,  Jacksonville,  Fla 5.99 

Savannah  Union  Station  Company — 

Cent.  Junct.,  Ga..  to  Union  Denot,  Savannah,  Ga.  5.38 
St.  Louis  Terminal  Railroad  Association — 

At  East  St.  Louis,  Hi 3.18 

Fast  St.  Louis  and  Cairo  Railroad — 

Relay  Junction  to  Broadway,  E.  St.  Louis,  111..  . 0.10 

Jacksonville  and  St.  Louis  Railway — 

Through  Centralia,  111 1.80 

Baltimore  and  Ohio  Southwestern  Railroad — 

At  New  Albany,  Ind 0.06 

Chicago  and  Alton  Railway — 

Near  Fast  St.  Louis,  111 0.70 

Illinois  Central  Railroad  (0.83  mile)  — 

Eleventh  St.  to  Seventh  St.  Sta.,  Louisville,  Ky.  0.50 
Entrance  to  Calhoun  St.  Sta.,  Memphis.  Tenn. . . 0.33 


1 1 


Kentucky  and  Indiana  Bridge  and  Railroad  (9.90  m.)  — 

New  Albany,  Ind.,  to  Louisville,  Ky 9.90 

Total  trackage  468.85 

*'The  mileage  of  the  Charlotte  and  Rapidan  Railroad,  from 
Charlotteville  to  Orange,  Va.,  28.22  miles,  is  included  in  this 
length,  although  that  line  as  yet  has  not  become  formally  merged 
with  the  Southern  Railway. 

t These  lines  constitute  the  Southern  Railway  in  Mississippi. 
**  Southern  Railway  in  Kentucky, 
tt  Southern  Railway  in  Indiana. 

RECAPITULATION. 

MILES. 

(a.)  Lines  owned  (4,378.96  miles).  Main  Lines: 

In  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Tennessee, 

Alabama,  Mississippi,  Kentucky,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  . . .3,000.95 
Branches  and  Spurs:  In  District  of  Columbia, 

Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 

Tennessee,  Alabama,  Kentucky,  Indiana  and  Illinois 1,378.01 

( b .)  Proprietary  railroads  1,459.11 

(c.)  Leased  railroads  817.51 

(d.)  Operated:  Roswell  Railroad 12.55 

(e.)  Trackage  rights  468.85 

Total  length  of  lines  operated  by  Southern  Rail- 
way Company,  June  30,  1903 7,136.98 

In  addition  to  the  above  the  Southern  Railway  Company  con- 
trols the  following  railroads,  which  are  operated  independently : 

MILES. 

Augusta  Southern  Railroad — 

Augusta  to  Tennille,  Ga 82.5 

Blue  Ridge  Railroad — 

Owned — Anderson  to  Walhalla.  S.  C 34.02 

Leased — Southern  Railway — Anderson  to  Belton, 

S.  C " 9.98 

Danville  and  Western  Railway — 

Owned — Stokesville,  Va.,  to  Stuart,  Va 70.00 

Leaksville  Junction  to  Leaksville,  N.  C.  8.00 
Trackage  Right — Southern  Railway,  Danville  to 

Stokesland,  Va 5.00 

Total  operated  83.00 

Hartwell  Railroad — 

Hartwell  to  Bowersville.  Ga 10.10 

Northern  Alabama  Railway — 

Sheffield  to  Parrish,  Ala 95.56 

Riverton  to  Riverton  Junction,  Ala 11.00 

Various  branches  to  mines 8.03 


Total 


114.59 


St.  Johns  River  Terminal  Company — 

Jacksonville  to  Grand  Crossing,  Fla 6.39 

Alabama  Great  Southern  Railway  Company — 

Wauhatchie,  Tenn.,  to  Meridian,  Miss 290.49 

Proprietary  Road — Gadsden  to  Attalla,  Ala 5.90 

Lines  used  under  trackage  contracts 13.02 

Leased  Road — Belt  Railway  of  Chattanooga : In 

and  around  Chattanooga,  Tenn 24.04 


Total  length  of  all  lines  operated  June  30, 

1903  333.45 

MILES. 

Mobile  and  Ohio  Railroad  Company — 

Main  Line — Mobile,  Ala.,  to  Columbus,  Ivy 472.0 

Cairo  Extension — South  Columbus,  Ky.  to,  East 

Cairo,  Ivy 21.0 

Columbus  Branch — Artesia,  Miss,,  to  Columbus, 

Miss 14.0 

Starkville  Branch — Artesia,  Miss.,  to  Starkville, 

Miss 11.0 

Aberdeen  Branch — Muldon,  Miss.,  to  Aberdeen, 

Miss 9.0 

Montgomery  Division — Columbus,  Miss.,  to  Mont- 
gomery, Ala 167.2 

Warrior  Branch — Tuscaloosa,  Ala.,  to  Warrior 

Coal  Fields  9.5 

Blocton  Branch — Eline,  Ala.,  to  Cahaba  Coal 

Fields 11.8 

Mobile  and  Pritchards  to  Bayou  la  Batre,  Ala..  . 34.1 

Bay  Shore  Railway,  Delchamps  to  Alabama  Port, 

Ala 4.3 

Leased  Line — St.  Louis  & Cairo  R.  R. ; Cairo 

to  E.  St.  Louis,  111 158.6 


912.5 

Deduct  Mobile  & Bay  Shore  Ry.  (not  operated) . 38.4 


Length  of  lines  operated,  June  30,  1903 874.1 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  first  became  a combination 
of  railroads  leading  into  the  Southeastern  States  from  Virginia 
gateways  and  South  Atlantic  ports,  and  then  enlarged  the  com- 
bination by  the  purchase  of  stocks,  securities,  or  lease  of  or  other 
arrangements  with  railroads  from  Ohio  and  Mississippi  River  gate- 
ways and  Gulf  ports  into  the  common  territory  reached  from  the 
Virginia  gateways  and  South  Atlantic  ports. 

The  foregoing  statement  relating  to  the  Southern  Railway 
Company  makes  clear  the  following  facts: 


. 


i3 


1.  That  this  corporation  has  come  into  absolute  control  of 
the  interstate  trade  and  commence  of  a part  of  what  is  com- 
monly known  as  the  Southern  territory;  a part  of  the  remaining 
interstate  trade  and  commerce  of  this  territory  being  controlled  by 
the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  to  which  more  particular  refer- 
ence will  be  made  hereafter. 

2.  That  this  control  has  been  obtained  by  the  purchase  by 
the  Southern  Railway  Company  of  the  controlling  stock  of  other 
railroads  or  by  the  ownership  of  their  securities  or  by  lease. 

3.  That  the  roads  thus  brought  into  combination  with  the 
Southern  Railway  Company  are  in  certain  cases  parallel  roads,  in 
other  cases  competing  roads,  continuous  roads  or  intersecting  roads. 

4.  That  by  this  combination  of  roads  the  Southern  Railway 
Company  has  the  power,  and  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  combi- 
nation is  not  only  to  restrain  interstate  trade  and  commerce  in  the 
section  of  territory  controlled  by  it,  but  to  unreasonably  restrain 
such  trade  and  commerce,  because  the  main  purpose  of  every 
monopoly  is  to  benefit  itself  and  not  the  public. 

5.  That  a combination  owning  or  controlling  railroads  leading 
from  all  of  the  principal  gateways  and  from  all  directions  of  the 
compass  into  a common  territory  of  destination  has  the  power  to 
restrain  trade  and  commerce  among  the  several  states  as  effectually 
as  does  a combination  which  consists  of  two  parallel  and  competing 
roads : and 

It  will  further  appear  from  the  evidence  set  forth  in  another 
part  of  this  petition — 

That  such  combination  not  only  has  the  power,  but  is  now 
exercising  it,  to  restrain  and  restrict  trade  and  commerce  between 
the  Northern  and  Western  States  and  the  Southern  States  by 
making  and  charging  rates  from  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  River 
gateways  and  the  Southern  States  that  are  unreasonably  high  as 
compared  with  the  rates  between  the  East  and  Southeast  and  the 
Southern  States. 

From  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts  by  the  now  well  settled 
construction  of  the  Anti-Trust  Law  of  1890,  it  is  apparent  that 
the  Southern  Railway  Company  is  a combination  and  conspiracy 
in  restraint  of  interstate  trade  and  commerce,  and  a monopoly  of 
such  interstate  trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of  that  law, 
and  should  be  enjoined  by  the  United  States  as  directed  by  said 
law  from  continuing  as  such  combination,  conspiracy  and 
monopoly. 


14 


By  Sections  1 and  3 of  the  Anti-Trust  Law  of  1890,  “Every 
contract,  combination  in  the  form  of  trust  or  otherwise,  or  con- 
spiracy, in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several  states, 
or  with  foreign  nations’’  is  declared  to  be  illegal;  by  Section  2,  of 
the  same  act,  it  is  made  illegal  for  any  person  or  persons  to  “mo- 
nopolize or  attempt  to  monopolize,  or  combine  or  conspire  with  any 
other  person  or  persons  to  monopolize  any  part  of  the  trade  or 
commerce  among  the  several  states  or  with  foreign  nations;”  and 
by  Section  8,  of  said  Act,  “the  word  ‘person’  or  ‘persons’  wherever 
used  in  this  act  shall  be  deemed  to  include  corporations  and  asso- 
ciations existing  under  or  authorized  by  the  laws  of  either  the 
United  States,  the  laws  of  any  of  the  Territories,  the  laws  of  any 
state,  or  the  laws  of  any  foreign  country.” 

In  the  Merger  case  (Northern  Securities  Co.  vs.  United  States, 

193  U.  S.  197),  decided  March  14,  1904,  Mr.  Justice  Harlan, 
speaking  for  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  took  occa-  • 

sion  to  summarize  all  previous  decisions  under  the  statute,  and  to 
state  the  rules  of  law  established  by  them.  This  summary  is  as 
follows  (page  329)  : 

“The  first  case  in  this  court  arising  under  the  Anti-Trust  Act 
was  United  States  v.  E.  C.  Knight  Co.,  156  U.  S.  1.  The  next 
case  was  that  of  United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  Freight  Asso- 
ciation, 166  U.  S.  290.  That  was  followed  by  United  States  v. 

Joint  Traffic  Association,  171  U.  S.  505,  Ilophins  v.  United  States, 

171  IT.  S.  578,  Anderson  v.  United  States,  171  U.  S.  604,  Addy- 
ston  Pipe  & Steel  Co.  v.  United  States,  175  U.  S.  211,  and.  Mon- 
tague & Co.  v.  Lowry,  193  U.  S.  38.  To  these  may  be  added 
Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Railway,  161  U.  S.  646,  which,  al- 
though not  arising  under  the  Anti-Trust  Act,  involved  an  agree- 
ment under  which  the  Great.  Northern  and  Northern  Pacific  Pail- 
way Companies  should  be  consolidated  and  by  which  competition 
between  those  companies  was  to  cease.  In  United  States  v.  E.  C. 

Knight  & Co.,  it  was  held  that  the  agreement  or  arrangement 
there  involved  had  reference  only  to  the  manufacture  or  produc- 
tion of  sugar  by  those  engaged  in  the  alleged  combination,  but  if 
it  had  directly  embraced  interstate  or  international  commerce,  it 
would  then  have  been  covered  by  the  Anti-Trust  Act  and  would 
have  been  illegal;  in  United  States  v.  Trans-Missouri  Freight 
Association,  that  an  agreement  between  certain  railroad  com-  . 
panies  providing  for  establishing  and  maintaining,  for  their  mu- 
tual protection,  reasonable  rates,  rules  and  regulations  in  respect 
of  freight  traffic,  through  and  local,  and  by  which  free  competi- 


15 


tion  among  those  companies  was  restricted,  was,  by  reason  of 
.such  restriction,  illegal  under  the  Anti-Trust  Act;  in  United 
States  v.  Joint  Traffic  Association , that  an  arrangement  between 
certain  railroad  companies  in  reference  to  railroad  traffic  among 
the  states,  by  which  the  railroads  involved  were  not  subject  to 
competition  among  themselves,  was  also  forbidden  by  the  Act;  in 
Hopldns  v.  United  States  and  Anderson  v.  United  States , that 
the  act  embraced  only  agreements  that  had  direct  connection  with 
interstate  commerce  and  that  such  commerce  comprehended  inter- 
course for  all  the  purposes  of  trade,  in  any  and  all  its  forms, 
including  the  transportation,  purchase,  sale  and  exchange  of  com- 
modities between  citizens  of  different  states,  and  the  power  to 
Tegulate  it  embraced  all  the  instrumentalities  by  which  such  com- 
merce is  conducted;  in  Addyston  Pipe  & Steel  Co.  v.  United, 
States,  all  the  members  of  the  court  concurring,  that  the  act  of 
Congress  made  illegal  an  agreement  between  certain  private  com- 
panies or  corporations  engaged  in  different  states  in  the  manu- 
facture, sale  and  transportation  of  iron  pipe,  whereby  competi- 
tion among  them  was  avoided,  was  covered  by  the  Anti-Trust  Act; 
and  in  Montague  v.  Lowry,  all  the  members  of  the  court  again 
concurring,  that  a combination  created  by  an  agreement  between 
certain  private  manufacturers  and  dealers  in  tiles,  grates  and 
mantels,  in  different  States,  whereby  they  controlled  or  sought 
to  control  the  price  of  such  articles  in  those  states,  was  condemned 
by  the  act  of  Congress.  In  Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Railway, 
which,  as  already  stated,  involved  the  consolidation  of  the  Great 
Northern  and  Northern  Pacific  Railway  Companies,  the  court 
said : The  consolidation  of  these  two  great  corporations  will  una- 
voidably result  in  giving  to  the  defendant  (the  Great  Northern) 
a monopoly  of  all  traffic  in  the  northern  half  of  the  State  of  Min- 
nesota, as  well  as  of  all  trans-continental  traffic  north  of  the  line 
of  the  Union  Pacific,  against  which  public  regulations  will  be  but 
a feeble  protection.  The  acts  of  the  Minnesota  Legislature  of  1874- 
and  1881  undoubtedly  reflected  the  general  sentiment  of  the  pub- 
lic, that  their  security  is  in.  competition. 

We  will  not  incumber  this  opinion  by  extended  extracts  from 
the  former  opinions  of  the  court.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  from 
the  decisions  in  the  above  cases  certain  propositions  are  plainly 
dedueible  and  embrace  the  present  case.  Those  propositions  are: 

That  although  the  act  of  Congress  known  as  the  Anti-Trust 
Act  has  no  reference  to  the  mere  manufacture  or  production  of 
articles  or  commodities  within  the  limits  of  the  several  states,  it 


i6 


does  embrace  and  declare  to  be  illegal  every  contract,  combination 
or  conspiracy,  in  whatever  form,  of  whatever  nature,  and  who- 
ever may  be  parties  to  it,  which  directly  or  necessarily  operates 
in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several  States  or 
with  foreign  nations. 

That  the  act  is  not  limited  to  restraints  of  interstate  and 
international  trade  or  commerce  that  are  unreasonable  in  their 
nature,  but  embraces  all  direct  restraints  imposed  by  any  combi- 
nation, conspiracy  or  monopoly  upon  such  trade  or  commerce. 

That  railroad  carriers  engaged  in  interstate  or  international 
trade  or  commerce  are  embraced  by  the  act; 

That  combinations  even  among  private  manufacturers  or 
dealers  whereby  interstate  or  international  commerce  is  restrained 
are  equally  embraced  by  the  act; 

That  Congress  has  the  power  to  establish  rules  by  which 
interstate  and  international  commerce  shall  be  governed,  and,  by 
the  Anti-Trust  Act,  has  prescribed  the  rule  of  free  competition 
among  those  engaged  in  such  commerce; 

That  every  combination  or  conspiracy  which  would  extin- 
guish competition  between  otherwise  competing  railroads  engaged 
in  interstate  trade  or  commerce , and  which  would  in  that  way 
restrain  such  trade  or  commerce,  is  made  illegal  by  the  act ; 

That  the  natural  effect  of  competition  is  to  increase  com- 
merce, and  an  agreement  whose  direct  effect  is  to  prevent  this 
play  of  competition  restrains  instead  of  promotes  trade  and  com- 
merce ; 

That  to  vitiate  a combination,  such  as  the  act  of  Congress 
condemns,  it  need  not  be  shown  that  the  combination,  in  fact, 
results  or  will  result  in  a total  suppression  of  trade  or  in  a com- 
plete monopohq  but  it  is  only  essential  to  show  that  by  its  neces- 
sary operation  it  tends  to  restrain  interstate  or  international  trade 
or  commerce  or  tends  to  create  a monopoly  in  such  trade  or  com- 
merce and  to  deprive  the  public  of  the  advantages  that  flow  from 
free  competition; 

That  the  constitutional  guarantee  of  liberty  of  contract  does 
not  prevent  Congress  from  prescribing  the  rule  of  free  competi- 
tion for  those  engaged  in  interstate  and  international  commerce; 
and, 

That  under  its  power  to  regulate  commerce  among  the  sev- 
eral States  and  with  foreign  nations,  Congress  has  authority  to 
enact  the  statute  in  question. 


7 


No  one,  we  assume,  will  deny  that  these  propositions  were 
distinctly  announced  in  the  former  decisions  of  this  court.  They 
can  not  be  ignored  or  their  effect  avoided  by  the  intimation  that 
the  court  indulged  in  obiter  dicta.  What  was  said  in  those  cases 
was  withing  the  limits  of  the  issues  made  by  the  parties.” 

The  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  The  Northern  Securities  Co . 
was  brought  to  invalidate  and  restrain  a combination  having  for 
its  purpose  the  consolidation  or  merger  of  the  Great  Northern  and 
Northern  Pacific  Railway  Companies  owning  lines  which,  in  part, 
were  parallel  and  competing. 

This  merger  was  attempted  by  the  organization  of  a corpora- 
tion in  New  Jersey,  with  power. 

“To  acquire  by  purchase,  subscription  or  otherwise,  and  to> 
hold  as  investment  any  bonds  or  other  securities  or  evidences  of 
indebtedness,  or  any  shares  of  capital  stock  created  or  issued  by 
any  other  corporation  or  corporations,  association  or  association's, 
of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  or  of  any  other  state,  territory  or 
country.” 

The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  held  that  the  inhibi- 
tion of  the  Anti-Trust  law  against  contracts  or  combinations  in 
the  form  of  trust  or  otherwise  to  restrain  interstate  trade,  and  its 
inhibition  against  attempts  to  monopolize  such  trade  or  commerce 
required  that  the  court  should  look  beyond  the  mere  form  of  a 
transaction  to  its  substance,  and  that  whatever  form  the  transac- 
tion might  take,  if  its  effect  were  to  restrain  interstate  trade  or 
commerce,  such  transaction  was  condemned  by  the  act ; and  that  no 
State  therefore  could  grant  authority  to  any  corporation  to  acquire 
control  of  any  of  the  railroads  of  the  country  when  such  control  had 
a tendency  to  restrain  interstate  trade  or  commerce. 

Whether  the  facts  have  any  bearing  on  the  question  of  the 
illegality  of  the  Southern  Railway  Company  combination,  it  is 
nevertheless  true  (1)  that  the  company  was  not  organized  until 
1894,  four  years  after  the  passage  of  the  Anti-Trust  Law,  and  (2) 
that  every  step  taken  by  it  in  its  combination  was  taken  after  the 
passage  of  that  law  and  with  full  knowledge  of  its  inhibitions. 

Had  this  company  organized  as  did  the  Northern  Securities 
Company  and  taken  over  the  different  roads  now  owned  and  con- 
trolled by  it,  there  could  be  no  dispute  that  such  a combination 
would  be  in  violation  of  the  law.  Is  there  any  difference  in  the 
contemplation  of  the  law  because  the  company  which  has  taken 
over  the  railroads  is  itself  a railroad  company  • instead  of  a hold- 
ing company?  If  the  substance  of  these  acts  of  combination,  and 


i8 


not  the  mere  form  they  are  made  to  assume,  is  regarded,  and  if 
the  purpose  of  the  law  and  the  results  which  it  seeks  to  prevent 
are  borne  in  mind,  it  is  impossible  to  differentiate  in  principle  the 
combination  effected  by  the  Northern  Securities  case  and  that  by 
the  Southern  Railway  Company. 

The  law  forbids  every  “combination  in  the  form  of  trust  or 
“ otherwise ” in  restraint  of  trade.  The  word  “otherwise”  was 
undoubtedly  inserted  in  the  law  by  Congress,  lest  an  attempt  to 
specifically  enumerate  all  combinations  in  restraint  of  trade  might 
be  found  to  be  unsuccessful  in  failing  to  specify  some  form  of 
combination  which  Congress  had  not  foreseen,  but  which  the  abil- 
ity and  ingenuity  of  lawyers  might  invent. 

In  the  third  syllabus  of  the  Northern  Securities  case  it  is 
declared  that : 

“The  Anti-Trust  Act  embraces  and  declared  to  be  illegal  every 
contract,  combination  or  conspiracy,  in  whatever  form,  or  of  what- 
ever nature,  or  whoever  may  be  parties  to  it,  which  directly  or 
necessarily  operates  in  restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the 
several  states  or  with  foreign  nations.” 

Again  in  the  syllabus  of  the  same  case  it  is  held  that: 

“To  vitiate  a combination,  such  as  the  act  of  Congress  con- 
demns, it  need  not  be  shown  that  such  combination,  in  fact, 
results,  or  will  result,  in  a total  suppression  of  trade  or  in  a com- 
plete monopoly,  but  it  is  only  essential  to  show  that  by  its  necessary 
operation  it  tends  to  restrain  interstate  and  international  trade  and 
commerce,  or  tends  to  create  a monopoly  in  such  trade  or  com- 
merce, and  to  deprive  the  public  of  the  advantages  that  flow  from 
free  competition.” 

In  his  argument  in  the  Northern  Securities  case,  Attorney 
General  Knox  said: 

“The  Anti-Trust  Act  was  purposely  framed  in  broad  and  gen- 
eral language  in  order  to  defeat  subterfuges  designed  to  evade  it. 
It  is  framed  in  sweeping  and  comprehensive  language  which  in- 
cludes every  combination,  regardless  of  its  form  or  structure,  in 
restraint  of  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several  States  or  with 
foreign  nations,  and  every  person,  natural  or  artificial,  monopoliz- 
ing, attempting  to  monopolize,  or  combining  with  any  other  per- 
son to  monopolize  any  part  of  such  trade  or  commerce.”  (North- 
ern Securities  Co.  v.  United  States,  301.) 

“It  is  not  essential  to  show  that  the  person  or  persons  charged 
with  monopolizing  or  combining  have  actually  raised  prices  or 
suppressed  competition,  or  restrained  or  monopolized  trade  or  com- 
merce in  order  to  bring  them  within  the  condemnation  of  the  act. 


19 


It  is  enough  that  the  necessary  effect  of  the  combination  or  monop- 
oly is  to  give  them  the  power  to  do  those  things.  The  decisive 
question  is  whether  the  power  exists,  not  whether  it  has  been  exer- 
cised. In  the  Trans-Missouri , Joint  Traffic , Pearsall  and  Addyston 
Cases,  supra , this  court  held  that  it  was  immaterial  that  trade  or 
commerce  had  not  actually  been  restrained— that  it  made  no  differ- 
ence, even,  that  rates  and  prices  had  been  lowered,  it  being  enough 
to  bring  the  combination  within  the  condemnation  of  the  act  that 
it  had  the  power  to  restrain  trade  or  commerce.  The  very  existence 
of  the  power,  under  these  rulings,  constitutes  a restraint.”  (North- 
ern Securities  Co.  v.  U.  S.,  303.) 

By  the  express  language  of  the  act,  too,  a combination  need 
not  affect  all  of  the  trade  or  commerce  in  a certain  territory  to  fall 
within  the  inhibition  of  the  law.  It  is  sufficient  if  it  affects  “any 
part  of  the  trade  or  commerce  among  the  several  States  or  with 
foreign  nations,”  and  the  Supreme  Court  has  given  to  this  lan- 
guage the  meaning  which,  upon  its  face,  it  clearly  has. 

In  the  Northern  Securities  case  Mr.  Justice  Holmes  said 
(page  402)  : 

“Again  the  statute  is  of  a very  sweeping  and  general  charac- 
ter. It  hits  ‘every’  contract  or  combination  of  the  prohibited  sort, 
great  or  small,  and  ‘every’  person  who  shall  monopolize  or  attempt 
to  monopolize,  in  the  sense  of  the  act,  ‘any  part’  of  the  trade  or 
commerce  among  the  Several  States.”  And  on  page  407  he 
declares  that  “Size  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter.  A monop- 
oly of  ‘any  part’  of  commerce  among  the  States  is  unlawful.” 

If  the  decision  in  the  Northern  Securities  case  goes  no  further 
than  to  establish  the  principle  that  a holding  company  can  not 
combine  competing  roads,  and  gives  permission  to  a railroad  com- 
pany in  place  of  a holding  company  to  combine  in  itself  as  many 
roads  as  it  sees  fit,  then  all  the  labor  taken  to  secure  the  decision 
in  that  case,  the  elaborate  arguments  of  counsel  and  the  extended 
opinions  of  the  court  were  concerned  only  with  a matter  of  form. 
The  decision  would  have  no  substantial  or  practical  effect;  and 
notwithstanding  the  decision  in  that  and  other  cases  under  the 
Anti-  Trust  Law,  one  railroad  company  in  time  may  come  into  the 
possession  and  control,  in  some  form  or  another,  of  many  or  all  of 
the  railroads  in  the  United  States. 

The  fact  that  the  Southern  Bailway  Company  is  a state  corpo- 
ration is  immaterial. 

In  the  syllabus  of  the  Northern  Securities  case  (page  199)  it 
was  hold  that : 


20 


“No  State  can,  by  merely  creating  a corporation,  or  in  any 
other  mode,  project  its  authority  into  other  States,  so  as  to  prevent 
Congress  from  exerting  the  power  it  possesses  under  the  Constitu- 
tion over  interstate  and  international  commerce,  or  so  as  to  exempt 
its  corporation  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  from  obedience  to 
any  rule  lawfully  established  by  Congress  for  such  commerce;  nor 
can  any  State  give  a corporation  created  under  its  laws  authority 
to  restrain  interstate  or  international  commerce  against  the  will 
of  the  nation  as  lawfully  expressed  by  Congress.  Every  corpora- 
tion created  by  a State  is  necessarily  subject  to  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land.” 

In  his  argument  in  the  Northern  Securities  case,  Attorney 
General  Knox  said  (page  306)  : 

“Congress  has  the  power  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  con- 
solidations of  railroad  corporations  when  the  consolidations  form 
interstate  lines;  in  the  absence  of  legislation  by  Congress  the  power 
exists  in  the  States  to  legislate  upon  the  subject,  but  in  the  presence 
of  legislation  by  Congress  the  power  of  the  States  over  the  subject 
is  excluded.”  (Noyes  on  Intercorporate  Relations,  Section  19, 
citing  Louisville  & Nashville  v.  Kentucky,  161,  U.  S.  677.) 

In  the  course  of  his  argument  in  the  same  case  (page  308), 
Attorney  General  Knox  also  said: 

“Ownership  of  a majority  of  its  stock  constitutes  the  control 
of  a corporation  when  the  inquiry  is  whether  a combination  or 
monoply  has  been  formed  to  stifle  competition  between  two  or 
more  rival  and  competing  railroads.”  Noyes  on  Intercorp.  Rel., 
Section  284;  Farmers’  L.  & T.  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  & C.  R.  R.  Co.,  150 
N.  Y.  410,  424;  People  v.  Chicago  and  Gas  Trust  Co.,  130  Illi- 
nois, 268,  291 ; Greenhood  on  Public  Policy,  5;  Richardson  v.  Cran- 
dall; 48  N.  Y.  343;  Salt  Co.  v.  Guthrie,  35  Ohio  Stat.  666;  Mil- 
bank  v.  N.  Y.,  L.  E.  & W.,  64  How.  (N.  Y.)  29;  Pearsall  v.  Great 
Northern  Railway,  161  U.  S.  646,  671;  Pullman  Co.  v.  Mo.  Pac. 
R.  Co.,  115  IJ.  S.  587 ; Pa.  R.  R.  Co.  v.  Commonwealth,  7 Atl. 
Rep.,  368,  371. 

In  the  course  of  his  argument  (page  309)  he  also  said: 

“It  (The  Northern  Securities  Co.)  constitutes  a trust  in 
another  light  also.  As  the  courts  throughout  the  country  held 
with  practical  unanimity  that  the  class  of  Trusts’  just  described 
is  illegal,  a second  class  was  invented  of  corporations  that  have 
acquired  control  of  other  corporations  b}r  purchasing  their  stock. 
4 his  organization  is  of  the  same  general  character  as  the  preced- 
ing,  but  the  form  is  changed  in  order  to  escape  the  force  of  the 


21 


decision  of  the  courts  relating  to  corporate  partnerships.”  Beach 
on  Monopolies  and  Industrial  Trusts,  Section  159.  The  Securities 
Company  clearly  comes  within  this  second  classification  of 
“trusts.”  Noyes  on  Intercorp.  Bel.,  Sections  310,  285,  393;  Peo- 
ple y.  Chicago  Gas  Trust  Co.,  130  Illinois,  268,  292,  302,  citing 
Gas  Light  Co.  v.  People’s  Gas  Light  Co.,  121  Illinois,  530;  Amer- 
ican Glucose  Case,  supi'a. 

If  one  railroad  may  combine  numerous  other  railroads  in  one 
corporation,  then  the  way  is  open  for  the  control  of  all  the  rail- 
roads of  the  country  by  one  or  more  corporations.  That  such  a 
control  would  be  in  violation  of  the  Anti-Trust  Law  is  evidenced 
by  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Brewer  in  the  Northern  Securities 
case,  in  which  he  said : 

“If  the  parties  interested  in  these  two  railroad  companies  can, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  a holding  corporation,  place  both 
under  one  control,  then  in  like  manner,  as  was  conceded  on  the 
argument  by  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  appellants,  could  the  con- 
trol of  all  the  railroad  companies  in  the  country  be  placed  in  a 
single  corporation.  Nor  need  this  arrangement  for  control  stop 
with  what  has  already  been  done.  The  holders  of  $201,000,000  of 
stock  in  the  Northern  Securities  Company  might  organize  an- 
other corporation  to  hold  their  stock  in  that  company,  and  the 
new  corporation  holding  a majority  of  the  Northern  Securities 
Company  and  acting  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  a majority  of 
its  stockholders  would  control  the  action  of  the  Securities  Com- 
pany and  through  it  the  action  of  the  two  railroad  companies,  and 
this  process  might  be  extended  until  a single  corporation  whose 
stock  was  owned  hv  three  or  four  parties  would  be  in  practical 
control  of  both  roads,  or,  having  before  us  the  possibilities  of  com- 
bination, the  control  of  the  whole  transportation  system  of  the 
country.  I can  not  believe  that  to  be  a reasonable  or  lawful 
restraint  of  trade.” 

It  might  be  suggested  however,  that  while  the  combination  of 
parallel  or  competing  roads  by  the  Southern  Railway  Company  is 
in  violation  of  the  law,  its  combination  of  continuous  or  intercept- 
ing roads  is  not. 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  combination,  as  complained 
of,  does  not  present  the  question  whether  a railroad  company  may 
purchase  outright  and  take  a deed  for  a road  which  merely  con- 
tinues its  line,  or  the  deed  for  a road  which  intercepts  its  line. 
The  Southern  Railway  Company  has  not  taken  deeds  for  the  roads 
leading  from  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  gateways,  which  it  owns 


22 


and  controls. (or  if  there  may  be  any  such  instances,  they  are 
exceptional ) . It  has  purchased . a sufficient  amount  of  the  stock 
of  the  corporations  owning  such  roads  to  control  them  by  electing 
the  directors  and  officers  of  the  same,  and  by  such  control  main- 
taining the  separate  corporate  identities  of  the  corporations,  it  has 
the  power  to  evade  the  provisions  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law, 
and  thus  to  restrain  interstate  trade  and  commerce  in  violation  of 
the  Anti-Trust  Law. 

A brief  reference  to  certain  sections  of  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Law  and  the  construction  put  upon  them  by  the  United 
States  courts  will  make  apparent  the  existence  of  this  power. 

Section  4 of  the  Interstate  Comlnerce  Law  is  as  follows: 

"That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  common  carrier,  subject 
to  the  provisions  of  this  act,  to  charge  or  receive  any  greater  com- 
pensation in  the  aggregate  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  or 
of  like  kind  of  property,  under  substantially  similar  circumstances 
and  conditions,  for  a shorter  than  for  a longer  distance  over  the 
same  line  in  the  same  direction,  the  shorter  being  included  within 
the  longer  distance;  but  this  shall  not  be  construed  as  authorizing 
any  common  carrier,  within  the  terms  of  this  act,  to  charge  and 
receive  as  great  compensation  for  a shorter  as  for  a longer  distance; 
provided,  however,  that  upon  application  to  the  Commission  ap- 
pointed under  the  provisions  of  this  Act,  such  common  carrier  may, 
in  special  cases,  after  investigation  by  the  ComPnission,  be  author- 
ized to  charge  less  for  longer  than  for  shorter  distances,  for  the 
transportation  of  passengers  or  property;  and  the  Commission  may 
from  time  to  time  prescribe  the  extent  to  which  said  designated 
common  carried  may  be  relieved  from  the  operation  of  this  section 
of  this  act.” 

In  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Company  v.  Osborne,  52 
Fed.  Rep.  912,  the  facts  and  the  decision  were  as  follows: 

The  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Company  owned  and 
operated  a railroad  from  Missouri  Valiev,  a town  on  the  western 
border  of  Iowa,  to  Chicago,  111. 

The  Fremont,  Elkhorn  & Missouri  Valley  Railroad  Company 
owned  a railroad  running  east  and  west  through  Nebraska,  and 
connecting  with  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Company  at 
Missouri  Valley. 

The  Fremont,  Elkhorn  & Missouri  Valley  Railroad  Company 
was  an  independent  corporation,  hut  a majority  of  its  stock  be- 
longed to  the  Chicago  & Northwestern  Railway  Company,  and  in 
this  way  it  was  controlled  by  it. 


23 


It  was  held  by  the  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Eighth 
(8th)  Circuit,  that  when  the  two  connecting  companies  united  in 
a joint  tariff,  they  formed  for  the  connected  roads  practically  a 
new  and  independent  line,  so  far  as  continuous  transportation  over 
„ them  was  concerned,  and  that,  therefore,  the  long  and  short  haul 

> clause  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law  would  be  applicable  to  such 
transportation  ; but  that  so  far  as  local  tariff  on  its  own  line  was 
4 concerned,  each  road  retained  its  independence  and  identity,  and 

neither  road  was  compelled  to  adjust  its  own  local  tariff  to  suit  the 
other,  nor  compelled  to  make  a joint  tariff  with  the  other. 

The  same  principle  was  declared  in  Tozer  v.  United  States, 
52  Fed.  Eep.  917,  a case  decided  by  the  same  court,  both  opinions 
being  announced  by  Mr.  Justice  Brewer,  of  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court. 

In  the  Osborne  case  it  is  said : 

% “Neither  company  is  bound  to  adjust  its  own  local  tariff  to 

suit  the  other,  nor  compellable  to  make  a joint  tariff  with  it.  It 
may  insist  upon  charging  its  local  rates  for  all  transportation  over 
its  line.” 

And  further  on  this  language  is  used : 

“No  power  exists  at  common  law,  and  none  is  given  by  the 
act  to  court  or  commission,  to  compel  connecting  companies  to 
contract  with  each  other,  to  abandon  full  control  of  their  separate 
roads,  or  to  unite  in  a joint  tariff.” 

!See  also  U.  S.  v.  Mellen,  53  Fed.  Rep.  229;  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  v.  C.,  N.  0.  & T.  P.  Ry.  Co.,  56  Fed.  Rep.  925; 
Allen  v.  Lewis  v.  Oregon  Railroad  & Navigation  Co.,  98  Fed. 
Rep.  21. 

In  view  of  these  decisions,  it  is  apparent  how  a combination 
such  as  the  Southern  Railway  Company  is,  in  the  operation  of 
* the  roads  controlled  by  it  by  the  ownership  of  the  stock  or  securities 

of  such  roads,  when  such  roads  merely  continue  or  intercept  its 
line,  and  are  not  parallel  or  connecting  roads,  may  evade  the  provi- 
^ sions  of  Section  4 of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Law. 

The  Southern  Railway  Company  controls  these  roads  as  com- 
pletely as  if  it  had  a deed  for  the  roads,  and  yet  it  is  able  to  treat 
them  as  separate  roads,  establishing  different  and  separate  rates 
over  them,  and  not  compelled  to  make  any  joint  traffic  arrange- 
ment for  through  transportation  over  them. 

Such  a combination  is  clearly  one  which  falls  within  the  spirit 
of  the  inhibitions  created  by  the  Anti-Trust  Law,  and  is  an  evasion 
which  the  law  will  not  permit. 


24 


But  whatever  the  method  by  which  a combination  of  railroads  is 
effected,  whether  by  purchase  of  stock,  or  by  taking  deeds  for  the 
roads,  and  whether  the  roads  are  parallel,  competing,  continuous  or 
intercepting,  nevertheless,  such  a combination  is  in  violation  of  the 
Sherman  Anti-Trust  Act,  if  it  gives  such  combination  the  power, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Southern  Railway  Company,  to  directly  restrain 
interstate  trade  and  commerce  into  a common  territory  (Southern) 
in  favor  of  one  section  of  territory  (Eastern)  as  against  another 
section  of  territory  (Northern  and  Western). 

It  may  be  suggested,  however,  that  the  construction  of  the  Anti- 
Trust  Law,  urged  in  this  petition,  logically  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  private  individuals  are  prevented  from  purchasing  the  control- 
ling stock  in  competing  or  continuous  roads,  and  as  such  a con- 
clusion is  manifestly  unsound,  the  premise  from  which  it  is  drawn 
is  also  unsound. 

The  answer  to  this  suggestion  is  twofold:  (1)  that  the  conclu- 
sion referred  to  does  not  follow  from  the  assumed  premise  that  a 
railroad  corporation  is  forbidden  by  the  Anti-Trust  Law  to  effect 
such  a combination  as  the  Southern  Railway  Company  has  effected ; 
(2)  that  even  if  such  a conclusion  does  follow,  it  has  not  yet  been 
held  by  the  Supreme  Court  that  a combination  of  individuals  can, 
by  securing  control  of  different  railroads,  restrain  interstate  trade 
and  commerce. 

As  bearing  upon  the  first  branch  of  this  answer,  what  was  said 
by  the  Supreme  Court,  speaking  through  Mr.  Justice  Brown,  in 
the  case  of  Pearsall  v.  Great  Northern  Railway,  161,  U.  S.,  646,  is 
pertinent : 

“Doubtless  these  stockholders  could  lawfully  acquire  by  indi- 
vidual purchases,  the  majority,  or  even  the  whole  of  the  stock  of 
the  organized  company,  and  thus  ultimately  obtain  its  control; 
but  the  companies  would  on  the  whole  remain  separate  corpora- 
tions, with  no  interests  but  such  in  common.  This,  though  possible, 
would  not  be  altogether  feasible,  and  would  require  considerable 
time  for  its  accomplishment.  In  a few  years  the  two  companies, 
by  sales  of  capital  stock  so  acquired  would  become  dissevered,  and 
the  interests  of  the  stockholders  of  each  company  become  antag- 
onistic.” 

In  the  Northern  Securities  case  (page  362),  Mr.  Justice 
Brewer  recognizes  the  distinction  between  an  individual  or  another 
corporation  acquiring  stock  in  any  corporation.  He  says: 

“A  corporation,  while  by  fiction  of  law  recognized  for  some 
purposes  as  a person,  and  for  purposes  of  jurisdiction  as  a citizen, 


25 


is  not  endowed  with  the  inalienable  rights  of  a natural  person.  It 
Is  an  artificial  person,  created  and  existing  only  for  the  convenient 
transaction  of  business.  In  this  case  it  was  a mere  instrumentality 
by  which  separate  railroad  properties  were  combined  under  one  con- 
trol. That  combination  is  as  direct  a restraint  of  trade  by  destroy- 
ing competition  as  the  appointment  of  a committee  to  regulate 
Tates.  The  prohibition  of  such  a combination  is  not  at  all  inconsist- 
ent with  the  right  of  an  individual  to  purchase  stock.” 

It  may  be  urged  that  the  Southern  Railway  Company  combina- 
tion has  already  accomplished  its  purpose,  and  it  is  now  too  late 
for  the  Government  to  seek  relief  against  the  combination.  This 
‘contention  was  made  in  the  Northern  Securities  case,  and  disposed 
of  by  the  Court  in  the  following  manner : 

“It  is  here  suggested  that  the  alleged  combination  has  accom- 
plished its  object  before  the  commencement  of  this  suit,  in  that  the 
‘Securities  Compan}'  had  then  organized,  and  had  actually  received 
a majority  of  the  stock  of  the  two  constituent  companies;  there- 
fore, it  is  argued,  no  effective  relief  can  now  be  granted  to  the 
Government.  This  same  view  was  pressed  upon  the  Circuit  Court, 
and  was  rejected.  It  was  completely  answered  by  that  Court  when 
it  said : ‘Concerning  the  second  contention,  we  observe  that  it 
would  be  a novel,  not  to  say  absurd,  interpretation  of  the  Anti- 
Trust  Act  to  hold  that  after  an  unlawful  combination  is  formed 
and  has  acquired  the  power  which  it  had  no  right  to  acquire, 
namely,  to  restrain  commerce  by  suppressing  competition,  and  is 
proceeding  to  use  it  and  execute  the  purpose  for  which  the  combina- 
tion was  formed,  it  must  be  left  in  possession  of  the  power  that  it 
bas  acquired,  with  full  freedom  to  exercise  it.  Obviously  the  act, 
when  fairly  interpreted,  will  bear  no  such  construction.  Congress 
aimed  to  destroy  the  power  to  place  any  direct  restraint  on  inter- 
state trade  and  commerce,  when  by  any  combination  or  conspiracy, 
formed  by  either  natural  or  artificial  persons,  such  a power  had 
been  acquired;  and  the  Government  may  intervene  and  demand 
relief  as  well  after  the  combination  is  fully  organized  as  while  it  is 
in  process  of  formation.  In  this  instance,  as  we  have  already  said, 
the  Securities  Company  made  itself  a party  to  a combination  in 
Testraint  of  interstate  trade  and  commerce  that  antedated  its  organ- 
ization, as  soon  as  it  came  into  existence,  doing  so,  of  course,  under 
"the  direction  of  the  very  individuals  who  promoted  it/  ” 

While  Section  7 of  the  Anti-Trust  Law  gives  to  every  person 
injured  by  its  violation  a right  of  action  at  law  to  recover  threefold 
ihe  damages  sustained  by  him,  yet  this  remedy,  even  if  applicable 


26 


here,  is  entirely  inadequate  to  meet  the  difficulties  presented  by  the 
present  situation. 

“Such  actions  at  law  would  be  multitudinous,  and  measured 
only  by  the  number  of  plaintiffs  which  would  be  many  hundreds, 
multiplied  by  the  number  of  shipments  which  would  be  many 
thousands.  Each  of  said  shipments  would  involve  only  a small 
amount  of  money,  and  the  necessity  for  a prompt  recovery  therefor, 
together  with  the  division  of  said  claims  among  many  plaintiffs, 
and  the  fact  that  they  would  be  divided  between  a number  of  de- 
fendants, would  prevent  the  joinder  of  only  a very  few  of  such 
claims  in  one  action.  To  so  proceed  would  be  tedious  and 
expensive,  and  would  defeat  the  object  in  view*  of  making  the  par- 
ties whole  on  account  of  their  damages  and  losses,  and  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  injuries  complained  of  are  continuing,  the  parties 
injured  would  be  compelled  repeatedly  to  bring  new  actions  and 
would  become  involved  in  constant  litigation,  which  parties  will 
not  consent  to  undertake/5 

The  parties  represented  by  this  petitioner  would  willingly 
proceed  in  Equity  to  enjoin  the  continuance  of  the  combinations 
complained  of,  if  the  Anti-Trust  Law  empowered  them  to  do  so, 
but  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  that  private  parties 
can  not  proceed  in  Equity  under  the  Anti-Trust  Law,  but  that 
such  an  action  must  be  brought  by  the  United  States  under  the 
direction  of  the  Attorney  General. 

The  syllabus  in  the  case  of  Minnesota  vs.  Northern  Securities 
Company,  194  U.  S.,  48,  is  as  follows : 

“The  intention  of  the  Anti-Trust  Act  of  July  2,  1890,  was  to 
limit  direct  proceedings  in  Equity  to  prevent  and  restrain  such 
violations  of  the  Anti-Trust  Act  as  cause  injury  to  the  general 
public,  or  to  all  alike,  merely  from  the  suppression  of  competition 
in  trade  and  commerce  among  the  several  States  and  with  foreign 
nations  to  those  instituted  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  under 
Section  4 of  the  Act  by  District  Attorneys  of  the  United  States, 
acting  under  the  direction  of  the  Attorney  General,  thus  securing 
the  enforcement  of  the  act,  so  far  as  such  direct  proceedings  in 
Equity  are  concerned  acording  to  some  uniform  plan  operative 
throughout  the  entire  country.55 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts  and  the  law 
applicable  to  them,  the  Petitioner  respectfully  asks  that  the  Attor- 
ney General  of  the  United  States  be  directed  by  you  to  institute  the 
proper  proceedings  in  the  United  States  Courts  against  the  South- 
ern Railway  Company. 


27 


ATLANTIC  COAST  LINE  COMPANY. 

This  Company  was  organized  on  May  29,  1889,  under  the  laws 
of  Connecticut.  It  owns  or  controls  a connected  system  of  railroads 
extending  from  Richmond,  Va.,  and  Norfolk,  Va.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga., 
Montgomery,  Ala.,  Ponta  Gorda,  Fla. ; reaching  Wilmington,  N.  C., 
Charleston,  Port  Royal  and  Columbia,  S.  C.;  Augusta,  Macon, 
Brunswick  and  Savannah,  Ga. ; Jacksonville,  Port  Tampa  and  Fort 
Myers,  Fla.,  and  numerous  other  points  in  the  South  Atlantic 
States.  The  following  statement  shows  the  mileage  of  the  Atlantic 
Coast  Line  System  on  January  1,  1904: 

MILES. 

Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company  (exclusive  of  C.  & 

W.  C.  trackage)  4,148.57 

C.  & W.  C.  Railway 339.58 

Northwestern  Railroad  of  South  Carolina  (ex- 
clusive of  A.  C.  L.  R.  R.  trackage) 69.30 

Total  length  of  railroads  controlled  by  A.  C. 

L.  Company,  January  1,  1904 4,557.45 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Railroad  Company,  owned  and  controlled  by 
the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  is  a consolidation  of  railroads, 
made  effective  May  1,  1900,  of  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad 
Company  of  Virginia  ; the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company 
of  South  Carolina;  the  Norfolk  and  Carolina  Railroad  Company, 
the  Wilmington  & Weldon  Railroad  Company,  and  the  Southeastern 
Railroad  Company  of  North  Carolina. 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  of  South  Carolina 
was  a combination  organized  July  16,  1898,  of  the  Wilmington, 
Columbia  & Augusta;  the  Northeastern;  the  Florence;  the  Cheraw 
& Darlington,  and  the  Manchester  & Augusta  Railroad  Companies. 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  of  Virginia  was  a 
combination  effected  on  November  1,  1898,  of  the  Petersburg  and 
the  Richmond  & Petersburg  Railroad  Companies. 

The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company,  as  above  described 
on  May  13,  1902,  was  combined  with  the  Savannah,  Florida  & 
Western  Railway  Company  (Plant  System),  which  latter  Company 
was  itself  a combination  of  railroads. 

On  November  1,  1902,  the  control  of  the  Louisville  & Nash- 
ville Railroad  Company  was  acquired  by  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line 
Railroad  Company  through  the  purchase  of  $30,600,000  of  stock, 
being  a majority  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  Louisville  & Nashville 
Railroad  Company.  The  latter  Company  owns  and  controls  6,133.15 
miles  of  railroads,  itself  being  a combination  of  a large  number  of 
railroads. 


28 


The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  and  the  Louisville 
& Nashville  Railroad  Company  are  joint  lessees  of  the  Georgia  Rail- 
Toad  Company,  and  joint  owners  of  the  Atlanta  Belt  Line  Com- 
pany. The  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  owns  one-sixth 
interest  in  the  Richmond- Washington  Company,  and  one-third 
interest  in  the  Chesapeake  Steamship  Company.  The  Richmond- 
Washington  Company  is  a corporation  formed  for  the  purpose  of 
operating  the  railroad  connecting  the  south  end  of  the  Long  Bridge, 
at  Washington,  D.  C.,  with  Richmond,  Va.  The  Chesapeake  Steam- 
ship Company  operates  steamship  lines  between  Baltimore  and 
Norfolk  and  between  Baltimore  and  York  River  in  Virginia. 

A more  detailed  account  of  the  railroads  owned  and  controlled 
by  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  and  the  Louisville 
& Nashville  Railroad  Compaq  will  appear  from  the  following 
statement  up  to  June  30,  1903,  and  accompanying  maps  taken  from 
Poor’s  Manual  of  Railroads,  1904 : 


ATLANTIC  COAST  LINE  RAILROAD  COMPANY. 
Mileage  operated  June  30,  1903. 


Lines  Owned. 


MILES. 

In  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 


Florida  and  Alabama . . . 3,999.26 

Leased  IAnes. 

MILES. 

South  Carolina  Pacific  Railway 10.50 

Central  Railroad  of  South  Carolina 40.20 

Wilmington  Street  Railway 1.25 

Winston  & Bone  Valley  Railroad 27.79  79.74 

Trackage  Rights. 

Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway 22.01 

Charleston  & Western  Carolina  Railway. . . 28.80 

Wilmington  Railway  Bridge 2.46 

Savannah  Union  Station  Company 3.71 

Jacksonville  Terminal  Companv 1.89 

Belt  Line  Railroad ' 1.00  59.87 


Total  length  of  lines  operated  June  30,  1903.  . . 4,138.87 
Lined  Operated. 

Statement  showing  in  detail  the  mileage  operated  by  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company,  June  30,  1903 : 

MILES. 


Richmond.  Va.  to  Port  Tampa,  Fla 898.04 

Pinner’s  Point  (Norfolk),  Va.,  to  Rocky  Mount, 

N.  C.,  and  branches 124.08 


29 


Clapton  to  James  River,  Va 4.55 

Acree  to  Dunlop,  Ya 6.51 

Western  Branch,  Petersburg,  Ya 3.15 

Pender  to  Kingston,  N.  C 85.82 

Tarboro  Junction  to  Plymouth,  N.  C 53.89 

Parmelee  Junction  to  Washington,  K.  C 25.39 

Rocky  Mount,  to  Spring  Hope,  N.  C 19.20 

Contentnea  to  Wilmington,  K.  C 105.00 

Goldsboro  Junction  to  Smithfield,  K.  C 21.50 

Warsaw  to  Clinton,  N.  C 13.43 

Wilmington  to  Newbern,  N.  C.,  and  Branches.  . 90.32 

Yadkin  Junction  (Wilmington)  to  Sanford,  K.  C.  116.40 
Parktcn,  N.  C.,  to  South  Carolina  State  Line.  . . 35.02 

Wilmington  to  Wilmington  Railway  Bridge 

Company  (Hilton)  1.83 

Wilmington  Railway  Bridge  Company  (Na- 

vassa)  to  Pee  Dee,  S.  C 92.89 

Elrod,  K.C.,  to  Conway,  S.  C 71.38 

Florence,  S.  C..  to  Wadesboro,  N.  C.,  and  branch 

to  Harts  ville,  S.  C 74.52 

Sumter,  S.  C.,  to  Gibson,  K.  C 73.77 

Florence  to  Columbia,  S.  C 81.70 

Lattato  Clio,  S.  C 19.78 

Sumter  to  Robbins,  S.  C 98.50 

Elliott  to  Lucknow,  S.  C 16.48 

Creston  to  Pregnalls,  S.  C 40.81 

Eutawville  to  Ferguson.  S.  C 6.16 

Ashley  River  Railroad  Branch 4.50 

John’s  Island  to  Ashley  River,  S.  C 8.70 

.Ravenel  to  Yonges  Island,  S.  C.,  and  Branches.  . 21.02 

Green  Pond  tc  Ehrhardt,  S.  C 37.67 

Jesup,  Ga.,  to  Montgomery,  Ala 353.21 

Waycross  to  Folkston,  Ga 34.04 

Albany,  Ga.,  to  Monticello,  Fla 82.47 

Climax,  Ga.,  to  Chattahoochee,  Fla 30.83 

Abbeville  Junction  to  Abbeville,  Ala 26.90 

Elba  Junction  to  Elba,  Ala 37.22 

Sprague  Junction  to  Luverne,  Ala 32.92 

Brunswick  to  Albany  Junction,  Ga 168.78 

Dupont  Junction,  Ga.,  to  Punta  Gorda,  Fla 301.13 

Lake  City  Junction  to  Lake  City,  Fla 18.9° 

High  Springs  to  Gainesville,  Fla 23.60 

Juliette  to  Ocala,  Fla 20.36 

Gulf  Junction  to  Homosassa,  Fla 21.88 

Bartow  to  Bartow  Junction,  Fla 16.20 

DeLand  Junction  to  DeLand,  Fla 4.00 

Sanford  to  Lake  Eustis,  Fla 28.62 

Sanford  to  Lake  Charm,  Fla 17.60. 

Astor  to  Leesburg,  Fla.,  and  Fort  Mason  to 

Lane  Park,  Fla 47.42 

Kissimmee  to  Apopka,  Fla 34.00 


30 


Thonotosassa  Junction  to  Thonotosassa,  Fla.  . ..  13.33 

Palatka  to  Gainesville  and  to  Brookville,  Fla., 

and  Branches 170.46 

Okahumpa  to  Yalaka,  Fla 6.56 

Enterprise  to  Enterprise  Junction,  Ga 3.90 

Sanford  to  St.  Petersburg,  Fla 153.33 

Kissimmee  to  Narcoossee,  Fla 14.40 

Lines  to  Factories,  Mills,  Etc 85.23 

Leased  Lines  (79.74  miles). 

Central  Eailroad  of  South  Carolina — 

Lanes  to  Sumter,  S.  C 40.20 

South  Carolina  Pacific  Railway — 

N.  C.  Lines  to  Bennettsville,  S.  C 10.50 

Wilmington  Street  Railway — • 

In  Wilmington,  N.  C 1.25 

Winston  & Bone  Valiev  Railroad — 

Winston  to  Tiger  Bay,  Fla..,  and  Branches 27.79 

Trackage  Rights  (59.87  miles). 

Seaboard  Air  Line  Railway — 

Garvsburg  to  Weldon,  N.  C 12.39 

Archer  to  Morriston,  Fla 19.62 

Wilmington  Railway  Bridge — 

Hilton  to  Navassa,  N.  C 2.46 

Charleston  & Western  Carolina  Railway — 

Robbins,  S.  C.,  to  Augusta,  Ga 28.80 

Savannah  Union  Station  Company — 

Telfair  Junction  to  Union  Station,  and  thence  to 

a point  near  Union  Junction.  3.71 

Jacksonville  Terminal  Company — 

Junction  with  line  to  Savannah  to  depot,  thence 

to  junction  with  line  to  Port  Tampa,  Fla.  . 1.89 

Belt  Line  Railway — 

In  Montgomery,  Ala 1.00 


Total  mileage  operated 4,138.87 


LOUISVILLE  & NASHVILLE  RAILROAD  COMPANY. 

Mileage  operated,  June  30.  1903. — (a.)  Lines  owned  (total 
3,385.28  miles). 

MILES. 


Main  Stem  — 

Louisville,  Ivy.,  to  Nashville,  Tenn 185.92 

Bardstown  and  Springfield  Branch — 

Bardstown  Junction  to  Springfield,  Ivy 37.44 

Knoxville  Branch — 

Lebanon  Junction,  Kv.,  to  Jellico,  Tenn 171.17 

Wilton  Branch — 

Woodbine  to  Wilton.  Ivv 3.97 

Jellico.  Birdseye  & Northern  Railroad — 

Halsey,  Kv.,  to  Jellico,  Tenn 7.40 


3i 

Cumberland  Valley  Branch — 

Corbin,  Ivy.,  to  Norton,  Va 117,44 

Cumberland  Biver  & Tennessee  Bailroad — 

Wasiota  to  Chenoa,  Ky 12.62 

Middlesborough  Bailroad — 

Micldlesborough,  Ky.,  to  Coal  Mjines,  Tenn.  . . . 16.22 

Louisville,  Cincinnati  & Lexington  Bailway — 

Louisville  to  Newport,  Ky 109.70 

Louisville  Bailway  Transfer — 

East  Louisville  to  South  Louisville,  Ky 4.13 

Lexington  Branch — 

La  Grange  to  Lexington,  Ky 67.00 

Shelby  Cut-Off — 

Shelbyville  to  Christianburg,  Ky 8.51 

Louisville,  Harrod’s  Creek  & Westport  Bailroad — 

Louisville  to  Prospect,  Ky 11.16 

Shelby  Bailroad : 

Anchorage  to  Shelbyville,  Ky 19.10 

Shelbvville,  Bloomfield  & Ohio  Bailroad — 

Shelbyville  to  Bloomfield,  Ky 26.72 

Kentucky  Central  Bailway — 

Covington  to  Livingston,  Ky 147.27 

Maysville  & Lexington  Bailroad — 

North  Division:  Maysville  to  Paris,  Ky 49.48 

South  Division:  Paris  Junction  to  Lexington, 

Kentucky  . . . 17.86 

Bichmond  Branch— 

Bichmoncl  to  Bowland 33.04 

Owensboro  & Nashville  Bailroad — 

Owensboro  to  Adairville,  Ky 83.46 

Mud  Biver  Branch— 

Penrod  to  Mud  Biver  Mines,  Ky 4.64 

Brought  forward 1,134.25 

Memphis  Line — 

Memphis  Junction  to  Memphis,  Tenn 261.59 

Paducah  and  Memphis  Division:  Memphis, 

Tenn.,  to  Paducah,  Ky 254.20 

Clarksville  & Princeton  Branch- — 

Clarksville,  Tenn.,  to  Princeton,  Ky 52.70 

Clarksville  Mineral  Branch — 

Hematite  to  Pond.  Ky 31.35 

Van  Leer  to  Cumberland  Furnace,  Tenn 6.00 

Southeast  & St.  Louis  Bailway — 

East  St.  Louis,  111.,  to  Evansville,  Ind 162.00 

Shawneetown  Branch : Shawnee  Junction  to 

Shawneetown,  111 40.70 

O’Fallon  Branch:  O’Fallon  Junction  to  O’Fal- 
lon, 111 6.04 

Henderson  Bridge  and  Connecting  Track 10.06 

Evansville,  Henderson  & Nashville  Bailroad — 

Ensfield  Junction  to  Henderson,  Ky 134.76 


32 


Madisonville  Branch — 

Mndisonville  to  Providence,  Ky 

Nashville,  Florence  & Sheffield  Railway — 

Columbia  to  Sheffield,  Ala 

West  Point  Branch — 

Iron  City  to  Pinkney,  Term 

Napier  Branch — 

Summertown  to  Napier,  Tenn 

Long  Branch — 

T.  & A.  Junction  to  Long  Branch 

Sheffield  & Tuscumbia  Railroad — 

Sheffield  to  Tuscumbia,  Ala 

New  and  Old  Decatur  Belt  & Terminal  Railroad. 
Stouts  Mountain  Railroad — 

S.  M.  Junction  to  Stouts  Mountain,  Ala 

Birmingham  Mineral  Railroad — 

Magella  to  Brickyard  Y,  8.02  m. ; Alice 
to  Alice  Mines,  0.89  m. ; Alice  to  Fossil 
Mines,  0.63  m. ; Graces  to  Bessemer,  11.57 
m. ; Sloss  to  Miuscoda,  1.2  m. ; Blue  Creek 
Junction  to  Blocton  Junction,  27.08  m. ; 
Yolande  to  Brookwood,  9.01  m. ; Chamblee 
to  Goethite,  3.65  m. ; Bessemer  to  Oneonta, 
49.3  m. ; Village  Springs  to  Cromptons,  3.39 
m.;  Gurley  to  Worthington’s  Quarries,  1.18 
m. ; Palmers  to  Bradford,  4.3  m. ; Oneonta 
to  Champion,  3.5  m.;  Boyles  to  Trussville, 
17.14  m. ; Gate  City  to  Graces,  10.28  m. ; 
Helena  to  Gurnee  Junction,  10.04  m. ; 
Readers  to  Leogusta,  1.68  m. ; Oneonta  and 
Attalla  Junction  to  Altoona,  9.56  m.;  North 
Alabama  Junction  to  Searles,  3.4  m. ; Val- 
ley Creek  to  Virginia,  Ala.,  2.05  m. ; Gurley 
Junction  to  Lehigh,  Ala.,  7.35  m. — Total. . 
Alabama  Mineral  Railroad — 

Attalla  to  Calera,  Ala 

Columbiana  Branch : Shelby  to  Columbiana, 

Ala 

Lumberton  Branch : Gilmore  Switch  to  Lum- 

berton,  Ala 

Skews  Branch : O’Connor  Junction  to  Skews, 

Ala 

Other  Branches 

Montgomery  & Prattville  Railroad — 

Prattville  Junction  to  Prattville,  Ala 

Mobile  & Montgomery  Railroad — 

Montgomery  to  Mobile,  A la 

Alabama  Florida  Railroad — 

Georgiana,  Ala.,  to  Graceville,  Fla 

Southern  Alabama  Railroad — 

Selma  to  Escambia  Junction,  Ala.,  and  Branch. 


16.10 

82.13 

11.78 

10.92 

7.32 

2.63 

3.62 

5.95 


185.22 

119.07 

5.84 

4.77 

3.60 

4.86 

10.35 

178.49 

100.38 

111.09 


33 


Camden  Branch:  Nadawah  to  Camden,  Ala.  . . 16.61 

Birmingham,  Selma  & New  Orleans  Railway — 

Selma  to  Myrtlewood,  Ala 60.25 

Pensacola  Railroad — 

Flomation,  Ala.,  to  Pensacola,  Fla 44.64 

Pensacola  & Atlantic  Railroad — 

Pensacola  to  River  Junction,  Fla 160.47 

New  Orleans  & Mbbile  Railroad — 

Mobile  to  New  Orleans,  La 140.36 

Ponchartrain  Railroad — 

Ponchartrain  Junction  to  Milneburg,  La 5.18 

(b.)  Leased  or  Operated  Under  Agreements  (Total  328.60  M.) 

MILES. 

Nashville  & Decatur  Railroad — 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  to  Decatur,  Ala 119.24 

South  & North  Alabama  Railroad — 

New  Decatur  to  Montgomery,  Ala 182.67 

Wetumpka  Branch  : Elmore  to  Wetumpka,  Ala.  6.30 
Western  Railway  of  Alabama — 

In  Selma,  Ala 0.70 

Southern  Railway — 

Gurnee  Junction  to  Blocton,  Ala.,  14.41  m.; 

Seymour  to  Piper,  Ala.,  2.23  m. ; Ardela  to 
Hansell,  Ala.,  3.05  m. — Total 19.69 

(c.)  Lines  Operated , Earnings  Not  Included  in  L.  & N.  Accounts . 
(Total  52.32  M.) 

MILES. 

Cumberland  & Ohio  Railroad  (South  Division)  — 

Cumberland  & Ohio  Junction  to  Greensburg,  Ivy.  30.90 
Glasgow  Railroad — 

Glasgow  Junction  to  Glasgow,  Ky 10.50 

Elkton  & Guthrie  Railroad — 

Elkton  Junction  to  Elkton,  Ky 10.92 


Total  length  of  Louisville  & Nashville  Sys- 
tem June  30,  1903 3,766.20 

Deduct 

Lines  owned  but  not  operated  ( See  Sec- 
tion 4) — Paducah  & Memphis 
Division  (leased  to  N.  C.  & St.  L. 

Railway) 254.20 

Clarksville  & Princeton  Branch  : Gracey 


Length  of  lines  operated  by  L.  & N.  Rail- 
road, June  30,  1903 .' 3,491.30 

Deduct — 

Lines  operated,  but  results  not  included  in 

income  account 52.32 


34 


Length  of  lines  whose  earnings  are  included  in 

income  account 3,438.98 


Average  length  operated  during  year  ending, 

June  30,  1903 3,438.93 

2s  track  owned,  71.41  m. ; sidings  owned,  763.37  m. ; guage 
4 feet  8}  inches.  Rail  (steel,  4,108.70  miles),  50  to  80  lbs. 

Railroads  in  which  the  Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad  Com- 
pany is  interested,  but  which  were  operated  by  their  own.  organiza- 


tions, June,  30,  1903 : 

Nashville,  Chattanooga  & St.  Louis  Railway 

(majority  of  stock  owned) 941.66 

Birmingham  Southern  Railroad  (one-half  of 

stock  owned)  26.37 

Central  Transfer  Railway  & Storage  Company. 

(one-half  of  stock  owned) 0.67 

Georgia  Railroad  System  (interest  as  joint 

lessee)  614.00 

Atlanta,  Knoxville  & Northern  Railway  (major- 
ity of  stock  owned) 228.14 

Chicago,  Indianapolis  & Louisville  Railway  (ma- 
jority of  capital  stock  owned  jointly  with 
Southern  Railway  Company) 556.11 


Total  operated  separately,  June  30,  1903 . . . 2,366.95  . 
Total  operated  by  Louisville  & Nashville  Rail- 
road Company,  June  30,  1903 3,491.30 

Owned  by  Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad  Corn- 

pan}",  but  operated  by  other  companies.  . . . 274.90 


Grand  total  in  which  Louisville  & Nashville 
Railroad  Company  was  interested  June  30, 

1903  ' 6,133.15 


Before  acquiring  the  Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad  Co.,  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  had  the  power  to  fix  rates 
from  Baltimore,  Md. ; Richmond,  Va. ; Norfolk,  Ya. ; Charleston, 
S.  C. ; Savannah,  Ga.,  and  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga.,  but 
it  could  not  exercise  any  control  over  the  rates  which  the  Louisville 
and  Nashville  Railroad  could  make  from  Ohio  and  Mississippi 
River  crossings  and  Gulf  ports  to  Atlanta,  Ga.  But  when  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  purchased  control  of  the 
Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad  Company,  it  acquired  the  power 
of  the  latter  Company  to  make  the  rates  from  the  Ohio  and  Mis- 
sissippi River  crossings  and  Gulf  ports  to  Atlanta,  and  thus  it 
acquired  the  power  to  make  rates  from  Cincinnati,  O.;  Louisville, 
Kv. ; Evansville,  Inch,  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Memphis,  Tenn. ; New  Or- 


35 


leans,  La.,  and  Mobile,  Ala.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga.  The  Atlantic  Coast 
Line  Railroad  Company  to-day,  therefore,  has  the  power  to  make 
rates  to  Atlanta,  Ga.,  not  only  from  Baltimore,  Md. ; Richmond, 
Ya. : Norfolk,  Ya. ; Charleston,  S.  C.;  Savannah,  Ga.,  and  Jack- 
sonville, Fla.,  but  also  from  Cincinnati,  0. ; Louisville,  Ky. ; Evans- 
ville, Ind.;  St.  Louis,  Mo.;  Memphis,  Tenn.,  New  Orleans,  La., 
and  Mobile,  Ala.,  to  Atlanta,  Ga. 

In  acquiring  control  of  the  Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad 
Company,  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  acquired 
something  more  than  simply  continuing  lines  of  railroads  from 
Montgomery,  Ala.,  to  Mobile,  Ala. ; New  Orleans,  La. ; M|emphis, 
Tenn. ; St.  Louis,  Mo. ; Evansville,  Ind. ; Louisville,  Ky.,  and  Cin- 
cinnati, 0.  It  also  acquired  the  power  to  make  rates  from  the 
entire  section  of  country  traversed  by  the  Louisville  & Nashville 
Railroad  Company,  the  products  of  which  section  compete  in  a 
common  territory  of  destination  with  the  products  of  the  section  of 
country  traversed  by  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company 
proper. 

The  power  vested  in  a combination,  in  the  form  of  trust  or 
otherwise,  to  fix  the  freight  rates  on  the  products  of  two  different 
sections  of  country  competing  with  each  other  in  a common  terri- 
tor}’  of  destination,  is  a power  which  can  and  necessarily  does 
directly  restrain  trade  and  commerce  as  between  said  competing 
sections  of  country  and  said  common  territory  of  destination,  just 
as  effectually  as  could  the  Northern  Securities  Company  restrain 
trade  and  commerce,  within  the  meaning  of  the  Sherman  Anti- 
Trust  Act,  by  having  the  power  to  fix  freight  rates  on  the  products 
of  a section  of  country  traversed  by  two  parallel  and  competing 
lines  of  railroad,  controlled  by  it. 

The  foregoing  statement  relating  to  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line 
Company  makes  clear  a state  of  facts  similar  to  that  which  exists 
with  respect  to  the  Southern  Railway  Company,  viz. : 

1.  That  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  by  the  ownership 
of  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company  and  otherwise,  has 
come  into  absolute  control  of  a part  of  what  is  known  as  the  South- 
ern territory;  and  by  the  control  of  the  Louisville  & Nashville  Rail- 
road Company  and  the  lines  of  railroads  owned  by  it,  controls  two 
great  arms  of  railroads  reaching  into  said  territory — one  coming 
from  the  East,  and  the  other  from  the  North  and  West. 

2.  That  this  control  has  been  obtained  by  the  purchase  by 
the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company  of  the  controlling  stock  of  other 
Tailroads,  or  by  the  ownership  of  their  securities,  or  by  lease. 


36 


3.  That  the  roads  thus  brought  into  combination  with  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company  are  in  certain  cases  parallel  roads, 
in  other  cases  competing  roads,  continuous  roads  or  intersecting 
roads. 

4.  That  by  this  combination  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Com-  %v 

pany  has  the  power,  and  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  combination 

is  not  only  to  restrain  trade  and  commerce  in  the  section  of  terri- 
tory controlled  by  it,  but  to  unreasonably  restrain  such  trade  and 
commerce. 

5.  That  a combination  owning  or  controlling  railroads  leading 
from  all  of  the  principal  gateways  and  from  all  directions  of  the 
compass  into  a common  territory  of  destination  has  the  power  to 
as  effectually  restrain  trade  and  commerce  among  the  several  states 
as  does  a combination  which  consists  of  two  parallel  and  competing 
roads;  and 

It  will  further  appear  from  the  evidence  set  forth  in  another  ♦ 

part  of  this  petition 

That  such  combination  not  only  has  the  power,  but  is  now 
exercising  it,  to  restrain  and  restrict  trade  and  commerce  between 
the  Northern  and  Western  States  and  the  Southern  States  by  mak- 
ing and  charging  rates  from  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  Eiver  gate- 
ways to  the  Southeast  that  are  unreasonably  high  as  compared  with 
the  rates  from  the  East  to  the  Southeast. 

From  the  foregoing  statements  in  regard  to  the  Southern  Rail- 
way Company  and  the  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company,  it  appears 
that  each  corporation  has  created  a combination  of  railroads,  with 
an  eastern  arm  and  a western  arm  reaching  into  common  Southern 
territory,  and  controlling  the  freight  rates  along  said  lines  into 
said  territory. 

An  examination  of  the  situation,  if  conducted  with  the  thor-  * 

oughness  which  the  powers  granted  to  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment would  enable  it  to  do,  would  also  show  that  these  two  systems 
of  railroads,  sometimes  by  agreements  between  themselves,  and  at  > 

other  times  by  agreements  between  themselves  and  other  railroads, 
through  the  agencies  of  Freight  Associations  and  in  other  ways, 
become  the  dominant  factor  in  fixing  the  freight  rates  from  the 
East  and  West  into  the  Southern  territory. 

As  illustrating  the  method  by  which  these  combinations  are 
established  and  maintained,  we  direct  attention  to  the  following 
Freight  Association  agreements,  and  a meeting  held  in  New  York 
December  1st  and  2nd,  1904,  at  the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel. 


37 


FREIGHT  ASSOCIATIONS. 

On  the  first,  day  of  May,  1897,  certain  railroad  corporations 
which  at  that  time  were  and  ever  since  have  been  common  carriers 
of  freight  and  continuously  engaged  in  transporting  freight  in  the 
commerce  which  is  continuously  carried  on  among  the  several  states 
of  the  United  States,  constituted  themselves  into  and  formed  the 
Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association.  These  railroad  cor- 
porations were  Alabama  Great  Southern  Railroad  Company,  Ala- 
bama & Vicksburg  Railway  Company,  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  and 
Texas  Pacific  Railway  Company,  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Com- 
pany, Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company  (Louisville  Division), 
Kansas  City,  Memphis  & Birmingham  Railroad  Company,  Louis- 
ville & Nashville  Railroad  Company,  Mbmphis  & Charleston  Rail- 
road Company,  Mobile  & Ohio  Railroad  Company,  Nashville,  Chat- 
tanooga & St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  New  Orleans  & North- 
eastern Railroad  Company,  Southern  Railway  Company  and  Yazoo 
and  Mississippi  Valley  Railroad  Company. 

On  the  first  day  of  May,  1903,  certain  railroad  corporations 
and  steamship  companies,  which  at  that  time  were  and  ever  since 
have  been  common  carriers  of  freight  and  continuously  engaged  in 
transporting  freight  in  the  commerce  which  is  continuously  carried 
on  among  the  several  states  of  the  United  States,  constituted  them- 
selves into  and  formed  the  Southeastern  Freight  Association.  These 
carriers  were  the  Southern  Railway  Company,  Central  of  Georgia 
Railway  Company,  The  West  Point  Route,  Western  & Atlantic  R. 
R.,  The  Seaboard  Air  Line,  Georgia  Southern  & Florida  Railway 
Company,  Atlantic  Coast  Line  Railroad  Company,  Charleston  and 
Western  Carolina  Railway  Company,  Ocean  Steamship  Company 
of  Savannah,  Clyde  S.  S.  Company,  New  York  & Texas  S.  S.  Com- 
pany, Old  Dominion  Steamship  Company,  The  Chesapeake  Steam- 
ship Compaq,  Baltimore  Steam  Packet  Company,  Merchants  and 
Miners  Transportation  Company,  Norfolk  & Western  Railway, 
Georgia  Railroad,  Macon  & Birmingham  Railway  Company,  Geor- 
gia, Florida  & Alabama  Railway  Company,  The  Wrightsville  and 
Tennille  R.  R.  Company,  Florida  East  Coast  Railway  Company, 
Jacksonville  & Southwestern  Railroad,  Colo.  Newberry  & Laurens 
Railroad  Company,  Virginia  & Southwestern  Railway  Company, 
and  Atlanta,  Knoxville  & Northwestern  Railway  Company. 

Each  of  the  said  railroad  corporations  was  prior  to  the  said 
dates  the  owner  and  in  the  control  of  and  operating  and  using 
distinct  and  separate  lines  of  railroad  fitted  up  for  carrying  on 
business  as  carriers  in  the  freight  traffic  between  and  among  the 


38 


states  and  territories  of  the  United  States,  having  through  lines 
for  the  said  freight  traffic  in  approximately  all  that  region  and 
country  lying  between  the  Potomac  and  Ohio  Rivers  on  the  north, 
the  Atlantic  Ocean  on  the  east,  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  on  the  south, 
and  the  Mississippi  River  on  the  west. 

On  the  said  dates,  these  railroad  corporations  intending  to 
counteract  the  effect  of  free  competition  on  the  prices  of  transpor- 
tation and  to  establish  and  maintain  arbitrary  rates  and  to  prevent 
any  one  of  the  said  railroad  corporations  from  reducing  such  arbi- 
trary rates  and  intending  to  monopolize  the  commerce  among  the 
several  states  in  the  territory  described,  combined,  conspired  and 
confederated  and  unlawfully  agreed  together,  and  did  then  and 
there  enter  into  contracts,  combinations  or  agreements  constituting 
the  Articles  of  Agreement  of  the  Southeastern  Freight  Association 
and  the  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association. 

The  territory  of  the  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Associa- 
tion was  then  and  there  described  to  be  and  is  approximately  all 
that  section  of  the  United  States  lying  south  of  the  Ohio  River  and 
the  Virginias  west  of  the  territory  of  the  Southeastern  Freight 
Association  and  east  of  the  Mississippi  River. 

The  subject  matter  of  the  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley 
Association  was  then  and  there  described  to  be  and  is  approximately 
all  traffic  for  which  two  or  more  of  the  parties  compete,  having  ori- 
gin and  destination  within  the  territory  of  the  Association  except 
coal,  coke,  export  and  import  traffic. 

The  territory  of  the  South-Eastern  Freight  Association  was 
then  and  there  described  to  be  and  is  approximately  all  that  sec- 
tion of  the  United  States  lying  south  of  the  Potomac  River,  the 
Virginia- West  Virginia  State  Line  and  a line  through  Middles- 
boro,  Kentucky  and  Chattanooga,  Tennessee;  west  of  the  Atlantic 
Ocean;  east  of  a line  drawn  from  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  to  Selma, 
Ala.;  north  of  a line  drawn  from  Selma,  Ala.,  to  Jacksonville,  Fla. 

The  subject  matter  of  the  South-Eastern  Freight  Association 
was  then  and  there  described  to  be  and  is  all  traffic  for  which 
two  or  more  of  the  parties  compete,  having  origin  or  destination 
within  the  territory  of  the  Association  except  coal,  coke,  cotton, 
export  and  import  traffic. 

Your  petitioner  alleges  that  seventy-five  per  cent  of  the  traffic 
subject  to  each  association  is  traffic  between  the  states. 

By  means  of  the  said  associations  and  by  means  of  agreements 
between  them,  the  discriminations  hereinbefore  complained  of,  are 
established  and  maintained.  The  South-Eastern  Freight  Associa- 
tion governs  and  controls  competitive  traffic  on  all  lines  of  railroad 


39 


running  from  points  north  of  the  Potomac  Kiver  to  points  within 
its  territory.  The  said  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Associa- 
tion governs  and  controls  competitive  traffic  on  all  railroads  run- 
ning from  points  north  of  the  Ohio  Eiver  to  points  within  its  terri- 
tory as  described,  and  from  the  City  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  to  the 
markets  and  sources  of  supply  of  your  petitioner  in  the  Southern 
States. 

Through  and  by  means  of  the  said  associations  and  by  agree- 
ments between  them  and  through  the  membership  of  certain  domi- 
nant carriers  in  both  of  them,  to-wit : The  Southern  Railway  and 
the  Louisville  & Nashville  Atlantic  Coast  Line  combination,  the 
said  carriers  are  enabled  to  and  do  establish  and  maintain  the 
discriminations  hereinbefore  complained  of. 

To  the  end  that  rates,  rules  and  regulations  be  established  and 
maintained  these  associations  adopt  rates,  rules  and  regulations, 
which,  when  agreed  to,  are  the  governing  rates  for  all  the  subscrib- 
ing companies. 

The  agreements  under  which  said  subscribers  operate  have 
since  their  adoption  been  in  force  and  lived  up  to  and  their  direct 
immediate  and  necessary  effect  is  to  put  a restraint  on  trade  and 
commerce  among  the  states. 

Certain  officers  of  the  subscribing  companies  are  made  by  the  said 
Articles  of  Agreement  to  constitute  the  boards  and  committees  of 
these  associations.  These  officers,  meeting  as  such  boards  or  commit- 
tees in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  the  association,  confer  as  to  every 
contemplated  change  in  rates,  rules  and  regulations  affecting  traffic 
of  the  association.  Such  board  or  committee  discuss  the  same  and 
arrive  at  a mutual  understanding.  In  accordance  with  the  rules 
of  the  Association,  resolutions  or  recommendations  stating  the 
sense  of  the  committee  concerning  the  matter  conferred  on  are  then 
adopted.  Immediately  thereafter,  pursuant  to  such  recommenda- 
tions and  resolutions  of  these  committees  acting  under  the  rules  of 
the  Association,  rates,  rules  and  regulating  embodying  such  recom- 
mendations and  resolutions  are  concurrently  put  into  effect  and 
promulgated  by  all  the  carriers  members  of  the  Association. 

Through  and  because  of  such  conferences,  mutual  understand- 
ings and  consequent  uniformity  of  action  the  people  within  the 
territory  of  the  Association  including  your  petitioner,  have  been 
deprived  of  the  benefits  which  might  reasonably  be  expected  to 
flow  from  competition  in  prices  between  the  said  carriers  unim- 
paired and  untrammeled  by  any  agreement,  joint  understanding 
and  concurrence  of  action  and  from  competition,  such  as  would 


40 


take  place  should  each  carrier,  as  it  should  under  the  law,  act  inde- 
pendently and  alone. 

Compliance  with  the  resolutions  or  recommendations  of  the 
Association  is  secured  by  threats  and  acts  of  reprisal  against  any 
delinquent  member,  to-wit:  By  invasion  of  its  territory  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Association  which  are  efficiently  located  for  the  same; 
by  diverting  traffic  from  the  lines  of  the  delinquent  member  and 
by  other  means. 

Since  the  formation  of  the  said  Associations,  the  subscribers 
have  been  acting  in  pursuance  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement  and  the 
resolutions  or  recommendations  of  the  association,  and  have  put  into 
effect  and  kept  in  force  upon  their  several  lines  of  railroad  rules, 
regulations  and  rates  fixed  and  established  by  the  association,  and 
have  declined  and  refused  to  fix  and  establish  rates  based  on  the 
cost  of  construction  and  maintenance  of  their  several  lines  of  rail- 
road and  such  other  elements  as  should  be  considered  in  establish- 
ing tariff  rates  on  each  particular  road,  and  the  people  of  the  states 
subject  to  the  association,  and  all  persons  engaged  in  trade  or  com- 
merce within  and  among  the  several  states  included  within  its 
jurisdiction,  and  your  petitioner  have  been  compelled  to  and  are 
still  compelled  to  pay  the  rates  of  freight  and  submit  to  the  rules 
and  regulations  established  and  maintained  by  the  associations,  and 
have  been  deprived  of  the  benefits  that  might  be  expected  to  flow 
from  free  competition  between  the  several  lines  of  transportation 
possessed  by  the  members  thereof,  and  are  deprived  of  the  equitable 
adjustment  of  rates  that  might  reasonably  be  expected  to  follow 
free  competition  between  the  lines  mentioned,  and  the  trade, 
traffic  and  commerce  in  such  regions  and  country  have  been  and 
are  restrained,  hindered  and  retarded  by  the  subscribing  carriers 
by  means  of  and  through  these  associations. 

In  order  that  it  may  be  made  to  appear  that  the  said  associa- 
tions are  formed  for  the  purpose  and  that  the  effects  stated  above 
result  from  their  formation  and  existence,  it  is  necessary  to  exam- 
ine not  only  the  printed  articles  of  agreement  as  published  by  the 
association  and  filed  with  the  Interstate  Commerce  Committee, 
but  the  acts  of  the  association,  the  acts  of  the  members  thereof  in 
accordance  with  and  under  the  agreement,  the  construction  put 
upon  the  agreement  by  its  members  and  their  admissions  concern- 
ing .it. 


41 


THE  SOUTH-EASTERN  MISSISSIPPI  VALLEY 
ASSOCIATION. 

The  Articles  of  Agreement  of  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi 
Valley  Association  are  as  follows: 

For  the  purposes  set  forth  in  the  following  Articles,  the  Com- 
panies, parties  hereto,  agree  to  form  a Freight  Association  to  be 
known  as  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association,  to  be 
governed  by  a Board  consisting  of  a duly  accredited  officer  of 
■each  Company. 

ARTICLE  I. 

1.  The  traffic  to  which  these  Articles  relate  shall  be  the  fol- 
lowing, for  which  two  or  more  of  the  parties  hereto  compete: 

(a)  Freight  traffic  which  passes  from,  to,  or  through  Ohio 
River  or  Mississippi  River  points,  Cincinnati  to  New  Orleans  in- 
clusive, when  destined  to  or  coming  from  Mississippi  River  points 
-south  of  Cairo  to  New  Orleans  inclusive;  except  that  traffic  between 
points  west  of  points  on  the  west  bank  of  the  Mississippi  River 
and  Mississippi  River  points  south  of  Cairo  to  New  Orleans  inclu- 
sive shall  not  be  included. 

(b)  Freight  traffic  passing  from,  to,  or  through  Ohio  River 
and  Mississippi  River  points,  Cincinnati  to  New  Orleans  inclusive, 
when  destined  to  or  coming  from  points  south  of  the  Ohio  River 
and  Virginias,  and  east  of  the  Mississippi  River. 

(c)  Freight  traffic  originating  at  and  destined  to  junction 
or  crossing  points,  both  of  which  are  located  east  of  the  Mississippi 
River  and  south  of  the  Ohio  River  and  the  Virginias. 

It  is  understood  that  on  traffic  to  and  from  the  territory  south 
and  east  of  the  line  Jellico,  Harriman  Junction,  Chattanooga, 
Birmingham,  Selma,  and  Montgomery,  to  Pensacola,  including 
junction  points  on  the  Alabama  Mineral  Division  of  the  L.  & N. 
R.  R.  (Attalla  to  Calera  inclusive),  this  association  shall  co-operate 
with  the  South-Eastern  Freight  Associations. 

2.  The  local  traffic  of  any  line,  member  of  this  association, 
or  the  local  traffic  between  lines  members  of  this  association  having 
the  same  management,  shall  not  be  within  the  purposes  of  this 
Association,  and  the  following  traffic  is  also  excepted : 

( a)  Coke  and  bituminous  coal. 

(b)  Cotton. 

(c)  Export  and  import  traffic. 

3.  This  association  shall  not  interfere  with  the  organization 

<D 

-of  the  Southern  Iron  Committee. 


42 


ARTICLE  II. 

1.  A chairman  shall  be  elected  by  a unanimous  vote  of  the 
association.  His  duties  shall  be  to  preside  at  all  meetings  of  the 
board,  keep  necessary  records,  and  promulgate  rules  and  regula- 
tions which  may  be  established  by  the  board,  and  the  rates  estab- 
lished by  the  several  members  of  the  association  applying  on  traf- 
fic to  which  these  articles  relate,  and  the  rules  and  regulations 
relating  to  same ; and  perform  such  other  duties  as  may  be  assigned 
under  the  terms  of  these  articles. 

2.  The  chairman  shall  issue  notices  of  regular  meetings  of 
the  board  as  hereinafter  provided  for,  not  less  than  ten  days  in 
advance  of  date  fixed  for  such  meeting,  accompanied  by  a list  of 
subjects  to  be  discussed  at  such  meetings.  Special  meetings  of  the 
board  shall  be  called  by  the  chairman  on  request  of  two  or  more 
members,  provided  that  not  less  than  seven  days’  notice  in  advance 
is  given  of  such  special  meetings.  The  members  making  such 
request  shall  designate  the  subject  or  subjects  to  be  discussed, 
which  shall  be  transmitted  by  the  chairman  with  his  call. 

3.  The  chairman  shall  cause  statements  of  traffic  carried 
within  the  territory  defined  above  by  each  of  the  parties  hereto, 
to  be  compiled  at  such  time  and  for  such  periods  and  distributed 
in  such  manner  as  the  board  may  direct. 

4.  He  shall  have  access  either  in  person  or  by  deputy  to  the 
books,  papers,  correspondence,  etc.,  of  any  of  the  officers,  agents, 
or  employees  of  the  parties  hereto,  relative  to  said  traffic  so  far  as 
may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  association. 

5.  He  shall  effect  such  an  office  organiaztion  as  will  enable 
him  to  efficiently  perform  the  duties  related  in  these  articles,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  Board. 

ARTICLE  III. 

1.  All  changes  proposed  by  any  member  in  its  rates,  rules, 
and  regulations  will  be  submitted  to  the  board  for  discussion;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  as  impair- 
ing the  right  of  any  company  to  change  any  rate  openly  whenever 
it  deems  proper. 

2.  Each  company  shall  promptly  advise  the  chairmen  of  its 
purpose  to  establish  any  rate,  rule,  or  regulation  on  traffic  to  which 
these  articles  relate,  together  with  the  effective  date,  and  shall 
furnish  the  chairman,  as  soon  as  issued,  copies  of  all  tariffs  or  other 
issues  relating  to  said  traffic. 

3.  Whenever  rates  have  been  established  by  any  member  there 
shall  be  no  unlawful  reductions,  such  as  by  payment  of  commis- 


43 


sions,  reductions  on  manifests,  or  by  underbilling,  or  considerations 
in  the  way  of  free  or  reduced  transportation,  or  by  any  illegal 
device  whatsoever. 

4.  Regular  meetings  of  the  Board  shall  be  held  at  such  times 
as  may  be  mutually  agreed  upon.  Special  meetings  shall  be  held 
upon  request  of  two  or  more  members,  as  hereinbefore  provided  for. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

1.  The  expenses  of  the  association  authorized  to  be  incurred 
shall  be  apportioned  by  the  chairmen  on  the  basis  of  mileage  of 
the  lines  parties  hereto  within  said  territory. 

ARTICLE  V. 

1.  These  articles  shall  become  effective  on  May  1,  1897,  and 
continue  in  force  until  May  1,  1898,  and  thereafter,  subject  to 
thirty  days’  written  notice  by  any  member  to  the  chairman  of  its 
intention  to  withdraw  therefrom. 

2.  The  headquarters  of  the  association  and  the  office  of  the 
chairman  shall  be  at  Louisville,  Ky. 

Your  petitioner  alleges  that  the  articles  of  association  above 
set  forth  are  still  in  force  at  the  present  time,  but  it  may  be  that 
some  slight,  unimportant  modifications  might  have  been  made,  not 
substantially  affecting  the  same,  or  the  purpose  and  effect  of  the 
association. 

It  is  obvious  that  these  articles  can  not  constitute  the  true, 
complete  and  actual  agreement  governing  the  subscribing  carriers. 
The  powers  of  the  association  are  nowhere  to  be  found.  A Gov- 
erning Board  is  provided  for,  yet  it  nowhere  appears  what  the 
powers  of  the  board  may  be,  nor  what  rules  are  to  govern  its  delib- 
eration, nor  whether  recommendations  or  resolutions  adopted 
require  a unanimous  vote  or  otherwise,  nor  to  how  many  votes  each 
member  is  entitled.  It  nowhere  appears  how  compliance  with  the 
articles  of  the  association  or  its  resolutions  or  recommendations  is 
to  he  secured. 

Your  petitioner  alleges  that  it  is  denied  access  to  the  records 
of  the  association  and  is,  therefore,  unable  to  show  in  detail  and 
by  specific  instance  that  the  acts  charged  above  take  place  through 
and  by  means  of  the  association.  The  United  States  Government, 
through  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  however,  can  com- 
pel the  attendance  and  testimony  of  witnesses  and  production  of 
books  and  papers  from  which  the  facts  hereinbefore  stated  will  be 
made  to  appear. 

That  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  has 
power  to  and  does  fix  and  maintain  rates  appears  by  the  fact  that 


44 


the  said  association  has  entered  into  certain  contracts  and  agree- 
ments with  other  associations  similarly  organized  and  for  similar 
purposes  and  with  railroad  corporations,  establishing  and  main- 
taining rates  and  classifications  for  competitive  traffic  within  their 
joint  territories,  to-wit:  By  an  agreement  between  the  South-East- 
ern Mississippi  Valley  Association  and  the  South-Eastern  Freight 
Association  made  June  16,  1900;  an  agreement  between  the  Cen- 
tral Freight  Association  and  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley 
Association  made  February  15,  1898;  an  agreement  between  the 
South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  and  the  Mississippi 
Valley  Association  made  June  15,  1898;  an  agreement  between  the 
South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  and  the  Western 
Trunk  Line  Committee  made  April  16,  1901;  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  and  the 
Missouri  Pacific  Railway  made  February  1,  1900;  an  agreement 
between  the  Southern  Association  and  the  South-Eastern  Missis- 
sippi Valley  Association  made  on  or  about  the  15th  day  of  Au- 
gust, 1896. 

That  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  has 
power  and  does  establish  and  maintain  rates,  rules  and  regulations 
on  competitive  business  concurrently  with  other  associations,  ap- 
pears further  from  the  records  of  proceedings  between  committees 
of  the  Trunk  Line  Association,  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley 
Association  and  the  Central  Freight  Association  and  representa- 
tives of  Southern  Despatch  lines  held  at  the  office  of  the  Trunk 
Line  Association,  New  York  City,  June  25,  1901. 

\ 

The  fact  that  rates  are  maintained  and  fixed  within  the  terri- 
tory of  the  association  by  the  association  appears  also  from  the 
record  of  meeting  of  executive  officers  held  at  the  Southern  Hotel, 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  on  December  29,  1899 ; that  the  members  of  the 
association  understand  and  construe  the  agreement  as  granting  to 
the  association  the  power  to  fix,  establish  and  maintain  rates 
within  its  territory  appears  from  a letter  from  a member  of  the 
association  to  the  chairman  of  the  association,  contained  in  gen- 
eral letter  of  the  association  numbered  1005  and  date  April  30, 
1901 ; that  members  of  the  association  secure  compliance  with  its 
rules  and  regulations  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  set  out  appears 
by  the  same  letter.  Your  attorney  general  having  power,  through 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  to  secure  the  attendance  and 
testimony  of  witnesses  and  the  production  of  books  and  papers,  will 
be  able  to  make  it  clearly  appear  that  the  facts  are  as  hereinbefore 
set  out. 


45 


THE  SOUTH-EASTERN  FREIGHT  ASSOCIATION. 

The  Articles  of  Association  of  the  South-Eastern  Freight 
Association  are  as  follows: 

For  the  purposes  set  forth  in  the  following  articles,  the  com- 
panies subscribing  hereto  form  the  South-Eastern  Freight  Asso- 
ciation. 

ARTICLE  I. 

Section  1. — An  Executive  Board  is  hereby  created,  composed 
of  either  the  President,  Vice-President,  General  Manager  or  other 
officer  of  each  member  of  the  association,  as  designated  annually 
by  such  member;  but  each  officer  thus  designated  may  appoint  any 
other  officer  or  agent  of  his  company,  as  proxy,  with  power  to 
represent  him  at  any  meeting  of  said  Board. 

Sec.  2. — The  Executive  Board  shall  elect  its  own  chairman. 
Said  board  shall  also  elect  the  chairman  of  the  association,  and 
shall  fix  his  term  of  service  and  salary.  All  expenses  of  the  asso- 
ciation shall  be  subject  to  the  review  and  approval  of  the  Executive 
Board,  or  of  a committee  to  he  appointed  by  said  Board. 

Sec.  3. — The  Executive  Board  shall  meet  upon  the  written 
request  of  two  or  more  members  thereof,  or  upon  the  call  of  its 
chairman. 

Sec.  4. — A majority  of  the  members  of  the  Executive  Board, 
present  or  represented  by  proxy,  shall  constitute  a quorum. 

Sec.  5. — It  shall  require  the  unanimous  action  of  those  pres- 
ent, in  person  or  by  proxy,  to  adopt  any  motion  or  resolution  that 
may  be  made  before  the  Executive  Board. 

Sec.  6. — The  Executive  Board  shall  have  power  to  reconsider 
any  subject  that  may  have  been  considered  by  the  Conference  Com- 
mittee hereinafter  provided  for. 

ARTICLE  II. 

Section  1. — Each  member  of  the  Eexcutive  Board  shall  ap- 
point a traffic  officer  of  his  company,  and  such  traffic  officers,  thus 
appointed,  shall  constitute  a Conference  Committee.  Any  traffic 
officer  appointed  a member  of  the  Conference  Committee  may 
appoint  any  other  officer  or  agent  of  his  company  as  proxy,  with 
power  to  represent  him  at  any  meeting  of  said  Committee.  A 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  Conference  Committee  present,  or 
represented  by  proxy,  shall  constitute  a quorum. 

Sec.  2. — Any  member  of  this  association  proposing  to  make 
any  change  in  its  rates,  rules  or  regulations,  will  suggest  the  same 
to  said  Conference  Committee  for  consideration  and  interchange 
of  views,  before  such  change  shall  take  effect;  but  it  is  distinctly 


46 


understood  that  each  member  reserves  to  itself  at  all  times  the  right 
to  take  separate  and  independent  action  on  each  and  every  sub- 
ject, whether  suggested  to  said  Conference  Committee  or  not. 

ARTICLE  III. 

Section  1. — Upon  complaint  to  the  chairman  of  the  association 
that  illegal  devices  have  been  resorted  to,  whether  by  secret  rebates, 
or  drawbacks,  or  payment  of  commission,  or  underbilling  of  weights, 
or  otherwise,  he  shall  make  an  investigation  thereof,  and  .he  or  his 
representatives  shall  be  given  access  to  the  records  of  all  members 
of  this  association,  so  far  as  the  same  may  pertain  to  the  traffic  with 
reference  to  which  such  complaint  may  have  been  made. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

Section  1. — The  association  expenses  shall  be  apportioned 
fairly  between  the  members  of  the  Executive  Board,  and  upon  the 
basis  so  fixed  by  the  Board,  the  chairman  of  the  association  shall 
have  authority  to  collect  the  same. 

ARTICLE  Y. 

Section  1. — Any  member  retiring  from  this  association  be- 
fore the  expiration  of  the  time  herein  fixed,  except  by  unanimous 
consent,  shall  not  be  released  from  its  obligations  to  contribute  its 
share  of  the  Association  expenses,  as  the  same  may  be  fixed  by 
the  Executive  Board. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

Section  1. — It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  chairman  to  preside 
at  all  meetings  of  the  Conference  Committee  to  keep  the  records 
of  the  association  ; to  receive  from  each  member  of  the  association 
copies  of  tariffs  or  rates  established  by  said  member;  to  compile, 
print  and  distribute  such  tariffs  or  rates  in  conformity  with  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Act  and  other  laws;  to  formulate  and  dis- 
tribute such  statistical  information  as  may  be  called  for  by  the 
Conference  Committee  or  by  the  Executive  Board,  any  expense 
incurred  in  collecting  such  information  to  be  apportioned  among 
the  interested  members  by  the  chairman  of  the  association.  Each 
member  will  furnish  such  reports  of  freight  traffic,  and  other  sta- 
tistical data,  as  may  be  called  for  by  the  chairman  of  the  associa- 
tion. The  chairman  shall  also  receive  and  list  for  discussion  sub- 
jects coming  before  the  Conference  Committee,  conduct  all  corre- 
spondence that  may  be  necessary,  and  communicate  such  informa- 
tion as  to  the  records  of  the  association  as  may  be  requested  by 
members  and  others  interested. 

Sec.  2. — Each  member  shall,  at  the  time  of  issue,  file  with 
the  chairman  of  the  association  copies  of  all  tariffs  or  rates  that 


47 


may  be  issued  by  such  member  and  in  which  any  other  member 
may  be  interested. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

Section  1. — Nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  so  construed 
as  to  confer  upon  a majority,  or  any  number  of  members  of  this 
association,  the  power  of  authority  to  make  rates  or  tariffs  upon 
the  line  of  any  other  member  of  this  association,  or  to  make  joint 
rates  or  tariffs  for  any  other  member.  Nothing  herein  contained 
shall  be  so  construed  as  to  confer  upon  the  Executive  Board,  or  the 
Conference  Committee,  or  the  chairman  of  the  association,  or  the 
Chairman  of  the  Executive  Board,  or  upon  any  other  committee  or 
officer  of  this  association,  the  power  or  authority  to  make  rates 
or  tariffs  upon  the  line  of  any  member  of  this  association,  or  to 
make  joint  rates  or  tariffs  for  any  member  of  this  association; 
it  being  distinctly  understood  that  each  member  of  this  association 
expressly  reserves  to  itself  the  exclusive  power  to  make  rates  and 
tariffs  on  its  own  line,  and  to  itself  and  its  connections  the  exclu- 
sive power  to  make  joint  rates  and  tariffs,  free  from  the  dictation 
or  control  of  any  other  member  or  members. 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

Section  1. — The  Articles  of  this  Association  shall  relate  to 
the  territory  lying  south  of  the  Potomac  River  to  the  Virginia 
West  Virginia  state  line,  then  via  said  line  to  Bristol,  Tenn.,  to 
and  including  Middlesboro,  Ky.,  Jelico  and  Harriman  Junction, 
Tenn.,  to  and  including  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  and  on  and  south  and 
east  of  a line  from  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  via  the  Alabama  Great 
Southern  Railroad  to  Birmingham,  Ala.,  thence  via  Southern  Rail- 
way to  and  including  Selma,  Ala.,  thence  via  Western  Railway  of 
Alabama  to  and  including  Montgomery,  Ala.,  thence  via  the  At- 
lantic Coast  Line  Railroad  through  Valdosta,  Ga.,  Jasper,  Live 
Oak  and  Lake  City,  Fla.,  to  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  including  points 
on  the  line  from  Montgomery  to  Jacksonville,  thence  via  the  South 
Atlantic  Seaboard  to  the  Potomac  River.  Said  articles  shall  relate 
to  the  rail  lines  and  steamship  lines  which  are  now  or  may  here- 
after become,  members  of  this  Association. 

Sec.  2. — Said  articles  shall  relate  to  traffic  having  origin  or 
destination  within  the  territory  above  defined,  in  which  two  or 
more  members  of  this  association  may  be  interested,  except  that 
said  articles  shall  not  relate  to  traffic  between  any  two  points  north 
of  the  Virginia-North  Carolina  state  line;  nor  to  traffic  between 
points  on  the  designated  northern  and  western  boundary  lines  and 
points  outside  of  the  territory  as  above  defined;  nor  to  traffic  from 


48 


or  through  North  Atlantic  ports  to  South  Atlantic  ports,  proper, 
or  from  South  Atlantic  ports,  proper,  to  or  through  North  Atlantic 
ports;  nor  to  coke  and  bituminous  coal. 

ARTICLE  IX. 

Section  1. — No  change  shall  be  made  in  these  Articles  of 
Association,  except  by  consent  of  each  member  of  the  Associat’on. 

ARTICLE  X. 

Section  1. — These  Articles  of  Association  shall  become  effect- 
ive the  first  day  of  May,  1903,  and  continue  in  force  until  April 
30th,  1904. 

Your  petitioner  alleges  that  the  articles  of  association  above 
set  forth  are  still  in  force  at  the  present  time,  but  it  may  be  that 
some  slight,  unimportant  modifications  have  been  made  not  sub- 
stantially affecting  the  same,  or  the  purpose  and  effect  of  the 
association. 

The  statements  made  above  concerning  the  purposes,  powers 
and  acts  of  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association  apply 
also  to  this  association  except  those  concerning  the  particular  Arti- 
cles of  Agreement  of  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Asso- 
ciation. 

Your  petitioner  states  that  the  said  South-Eastern  Freight 
Association  has  entered  into  certain  contracts  and  agreements  with 
other  associations  organized  similarly  and  for  like  purposes  and 
with  railroad  companies  establishing  and  maintaining  rates  within 
their  joint  territories  and  providing  for  classification  of  freight 
traffic,  to-wit:  by  an  greement  between  the  South-Eastern  Freight 
Association  and  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association 
made  June  16,  1900,  and  alleges  on  information  and  belief  that 
agreements  of  the  same  nature  with  other  associations  and  with 
railroad  companies  have  been  from  time  to  time  made  and  are  now 
in  full  force  and  effect. 


49 


JOINT  AGREEMENT 

BETWEEN 

The  South-Eastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association 

and 

The  South-Eastern  Freight  Association  < 

Effective  June  16,  1900. 

The  plan  for  discussion  and  interchange  of  views  upon  rates 
between  points  in  the  territory  of  the  South-Eastern  Freight  Asso- 
ciation and  points  in  the  territory  of  the  South-Eastern  Mississippi 
Valley  Association  shall  be  as  follows : 

First — A line  desiring  to  consider  a change  in  the  rates  will 
so  advise  the  chairman  of  the  association  to  which  it  belongs. 

Second — The  chairman  will  proceed  with  this  exactly  as 
though  it  was  a question  of  rates  between  points  in  the  territory 
of  his  association. 

Third— Immediately  on  receipt  of  notice  of  the  proposed 
change,  the  chairman  of  the  other  association  shall  proceed  to 
obtain  the  views  of  its  members,  under  the  rules  adopted  for  such 
consideration  and  interchange  of  views,  and  advise  the  chairman 
of  the  association  whose  members  originated  the  proposition  for 
their  action. 

Fourth — For  the  purpose  of  defining  the  exclusive  territory 
of  the  S.  E.  F.  Association  and  of  the  S.  E.  M.  V.  Association,  the 
dividing  line  between  the  two  associations  shall  be  considered  as 
beginning  at  Middlesboro,  Ky.,  thence  via  Rn  imaginary  line 
through  Jellico,  Tenn.,  to  Harriman  Junction,  Tenn.,  thence  via 
the  C.,  N.  0.  & T.  P.  Ry.  to  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  thence  via  the 
A.  G.  S.  R.  R.  to  Attalia,  Ala.,  thence  via  the  Alabama  Mineral 
Division  of  the  L.  & N.  R.  R.  to  Calera,  Ala.,  thence  via  the 
L.  & N.  R,  R.  through  Montgomery,  Ala.,  to  Pensacola,  Fla. ; and, 
further  beginning  at  Attalia,  Ala.,  thence  via  the  line  of  the 
A.  G.  S.  R.  R.  to  Birmingham,  Ala.  (and  not  including  what  is 
known  as  the  Birmingham  group)  thence  via  the  L.  & N.  R.  R. 
to  Calera,  Ala. 

It  is  understood  that  Selma,  Ala.,  and  points  in  what  is  known 
as  Anniston  group,  i.  e.,  Barclays,  Jenifer,  Munford,  Oxanna  and 
Oxford,  Ala.,  are  to  be  considered  border  points. 

It  is  also  understood  that  points  strictly  local  to  the  railroads 
forming  the  dividing  line  are  not  to  be  considered  border  points. 

Fifth — When  a proposition  comes  before  either  Association 
to  modify  the  rates  between  border  points,  the  Chairman  of  that 
Association  shall,  simultaneously  with  his  circular  letter  asking 


50 


the  concurrence  of  members,  notify  the  Chairman  of  the  other 
Association  of  the  proposed  action,  and  prompt  advices  shall  be 
given  to  the  Chairman  of  the  other  Association  when  changes  in 
the  rates  are  established  by  either  Association  under  its  rules. 

Sixth — Recommended,  that  the  rates  and  rules  affecting  the 
same  between  points  in  the  territory  of  the  Southeastern  Missis- 
sippi Valley  Association  and  points  in  that  of  the  Southeastern 
Freight  Association  in  effect  April  30,  1897,  with  such  changes  and 
amendments  as  have  been  subsequently  adopted  by  concurrent 
action,  be  adopted  by  the  several  members  of  each  Association. 

Provided,  However,  That  when  reductions  in  rates  are  made 
between  the  East  and  the  territory  of  the  Southeastern  Freight 
Association,  due  notice  thereof  shall  be  given  to  the  Chairman  of 
the  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association,  and  reduction  of 
rates  may  be  simultaneously  made  from  Western  points  upon  the 
established  basis,  by  correspondence  between  the  Chairmen  of  the 
respective  Associations. 

When  changes  in  rates  from  Eastern  or  Western  points  to 
border  points  are  contemplated  or  established,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Association  proposing  or  making  the  change  shall  promptly 
notify  the  Chairman  of  the  other  Association,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
members  of  the  latter  Association. 

Seventh — All  rates  and  rules  affecting  the  same,  as  estab- 
lished by  concurrent  action,  shall  be  published  by  each  Chairman 
effective  on  the  same  date,  and  bearing  a notation  that  the  said  rate 
or  rule  has  been  issued  with  concurrent  action  of  the  other  Asso- 
ciation. 

Eighth — Should  one  Association  hold  different  views  regard- 
ing any  change  or  ruling  proposed  for  concurrence  by  the  other, 
due  notice  shall  be  given  to  that  effect,  and  if  any  line  shall  desire 
joint  consideration,  the  matter  shall  be  taken  up  at  the  succeeding 
regular  meeting  of  the  Joint  Conference  Committee,  or  within  ten 
days  if  that  time  limit  be  demanded. 

Ninth — Recommended  further,  that  a joint  committee  of  ten 
members,  five  from  each  Association,  be  appointed  with  the  Chair- 
man of  each  Association  as  the  Chairman  of  each  division  of  the 
committee,  respectively,  to  consider  proposed  changes  in  classifica- 
tion, and  to  report  their  recommendations  to  their  respective 
Associations. 

Section  Nine  of  the  above  Agreement  is  no  longer  operative. 
With  this  exception,  your  petitioner  alleges  that  the  above  agree- 
ment is  substantially  being  carried  out  at  the  present  time.  But 


5i 


it  may  be  that  some  slight  unimportant  modifications  have  been 
made,  not  substantially  affecting  the  purpose  or  effect  of  the  agree- 
ment. 

NEW  YORK  AGREEMENT. 

There  were  present  at  the  meeting  in  New  York  City,  held  at 
the  Waldorf-Astoria  Hotel,  December  1st  and  2d,  1904,  repre- 
sentatives of  the  railroads  whose  names  are  more  particularly  set 
forth  in  the  seventh  ground  of  complaint  herein.  The  full  detailed 
report  of  the  proceedings  of  said  meeting  and  several  subsequent 
* meetings,  at  which  the  plans  and  the  details  for  carrying  out  the 
agreements  of  said  New  York  meeting  were  arranged,  are  recorded 
in  Circular  Letter  No.-  25,  Series  1904-05,  of  the  Southeastern 
Freight  Association,  under  date  of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  December  28, 
1904.  The  following  is  a partial  report  of  the  proceedings,  but 
sufficient  to  illustrate  the  character  of  the  combinations  and  con- 
spiracy, and  of  the  agreements  entered  into : 

The  following  resolution  was  offered : 

“Resolved,  That  the  rates  from  Ohio  and  Mississippi  River 
crossings,  upon  traffic  moving  from  such  points  and  points  beyond, 
to  Birmingham  and  points  taking  Birmingham  rates,  be  made  the 
same  as  present  rates  from  same  points  to  Montgomery  and  Selma. 

“That  the  rates  from  same  points,  except  Cincinnati  to 
Atlanta,  and  points  taking  Atlanta  rates,  be  made  as  much  greater 
than  the  rates  to  Birmingham,  Montgomery  and  Selma,  as  the  rates 
from  Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  territory  are  greater  than  the  rates 
from  Louisville,  Evansville,  etc. 

“That  the  rates  from  Cincinnati  to  Atlanta  and  points  taking 
Atlanta  rates,  be  made  not  greater  than  the  rates  from  Louisville, 
Evansville,  etc.,  to  same  points;  provided,  that  Atlanta  present 
rates  shall  apply  to  maximum.” 

* In  response  to  question  as  to  the  change  that  would  be  made 

from  the  East,  it  was  pointed  out  that  as  the  rates  were  not  reduced 
from  the  West,  except  on  western  products,  there  would  be  no 
^ change  from  the  East;  but  the  belief  was  expressed  that  Atlanta 

would  have  some  grounds  to  claim  a reduction  from  the  East. 

At  this  point  the  resolution  was  seconded  in  order  to  bring  it 
before  the  meeting.  Roll  call  being  ordered,  the  same  was  sus- 
pended by  request. 

It  was  suggested  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  settle  the  west- 
ern rates  first  before  it  would  be  possible  to  take  up  the  eastern 
rates,  and  therefore,  it  was  moved  and  seconded  to  refer  the  whole 
question  to  a committee  to  report  at  3 :30  P.  M. 


52 


The  Chair  appointed  the  following  committee : 

Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad,  Mobile  and  Ohio  Railroad, 
St.  Louis  & San  Francisco  Railroad,  Cincinnati,  New  Orleans  & 
Texas  Pacific  Railway,  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  Nashville,  Chatta- 
nooga & St.  Louis  Railway,  Southern  Railway,  New  Orleans  & 
Northeastern  Railway,  Alabama  Great  Southern  Railway,  Atlanta 
& West  Point  Railroad. 

The  Sub-Committee  convened  at  3:30  P.  M.,  and  submitted, 
as  a proposition  the  following  rates  from  Cincinnati  and  Louisville 
to  Atlanta,  the  basis  and  reduction  being  as  follows  : 


Class.  Rate.  Basis.  Reduction. 

1 98 Louisville  to  Montgomery 9 

2 8? Arbitrary  reduction  5 cents 5 

3 78 Louisville  to  Montgomery 3 

4 63 Louisville  to  Montgomery 5 

5 52 Louisville  to  Montgomery 4 

6 41 Louisville  to  Montgomery 5 

A 28 Louisville  to  Montgomery 0 

B 33.  .Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  and  Montgomery.  . 2 

C 26.  .Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  and  Montgomery.  . 2 

I)  22.  .Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  and  Montgomery.  . 2 

E 48 Louisville  to  Montgomery 0 

H 45 Arbitrary  figures 8 

F 44.  . Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  and  Montgomery..  4 

Flour  in 

sacks.  22.  .Cincinnati  to  Birmingham  and  Montgomery. . 2 

Adopted. 

It  was  decided  that  the  rates  on  commodities  should  be  lined 


up  by  the  Traffic  Managers  so  as  to  harmonize  with  the  changes 
made  in  the  adjustment  of  class  rates. 

The  question  then  being  in  regard  to  rates  from  the  East,  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  offered  a resolution,  but  suspended  same  at  the 
request  of  the  Georgia  Railroad,  and  after  some  discussion  the 
motion  was  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

“Moved,  That  the  rates  from  Eastern  Seaboard  Cities  to 
Atlanta  be  reduced  the  same  number  of  cents  per  hundred  pounds 
as  the  reduction  from  Louisville  to  Atlanta,  on  the  first  six  classes, 
and  on  classes  A,  E,  and  H.” 

The  Southern  Railway  then  offered  the  following  resolution : 

“Recommended,  That  the  present  rates  from  the  East  to 
Montgomery,  Selma,  Birmingham  and  other  points,  west  of  the 
line,  Chattanooga  through  Dalton,  Rome,  Atlanta,  Columbus, 
Eufaula,  be  continued,  except  such  rates  as  may  be  affected  by  com- 
bination on  Chattanooga,  Rome,  Atlanta  and  points  on  the  line 
above  described. 


53 


“Further,  That  the  rates  from  the  East  to  Chattanooga, 
Dalton,  Rome,  be  made  not  higher  than  to  Atlanta.” 

The  Louisville  & Nashville  Railroad  Company  moved  to 
amend  by  making  the  last  paragraph  read : 

“Further,  That  the  rates  from  the  East  to  Chattanooga, 
Dalton,  Rome,  Birmingham  and  points  taking  Birmingham  rates, 
Montgomery,  Selma  and  Opelika,  be  made  not  higher  than  to 
Atlanta.” 

The  St.  L.  & S.  F.  R.  R.  then  asked  whether  any  proposition 
had  been  made  to  reduce  the  rates  from  the  West  to  Birmingham  in 
line  with  the  reduced  rates  from  the  East  to  Birmingham,  as  per 
*.  the  amendment. 

Reference  was  made  to  the  Mallory  Line  traffic  via  Mobile. 

In  response  to  the  statement  that  unless  the  rates  from  the 
V East  to  Montgomery  were  reduced  to  the  same  figures  as  to  Atlanta, 
the  Mullory  Line  would  be  hauling  freight  from  the  East  through 
Mobile  and  Montgomery  to  Atlanta  at  lower  rates  than  to  Mont- 
gomery, a Southern  Railway  official  stated  that  the  Mobile  & Ohio 
Railroad  and  the  Southern  Railway  would  not  countenance  the 
movement  of  business  to  Atlanta  via  Mobile,  and  that  there  need  be 
no  apprehension  felt  on  that  score. 

A vote  was  taken  on  the  L.  & N.  R.  R.’s  amendment  to  the 
Southern  Railway  Company’s  resolution,  the  following  lines  voting 
in  the  affirmative: 

Louisville  & Nashville,  N.  C.  & St.  L.  Railway,  Georgia  Rail- 
road, Atlantic  Coast  Line,  Atlanta  & West  Point. 

The  amendment  was  lost. 

A vote  was  taken  on  the  Southern  Railway  Company’s  original 
resolution,  the  same  being  adopted  by  majority  vote;  the  lines 
a voting  in  the  negative  being: 

Louisville  & Nashville,  N.  C.  & St.  L.  Railway,  Georgia  Rail- 
road, Atlantic  Coast  Line,  Atlanta  & West  Point. 

^ The  following  note  was  appended  to  the  minutes  of  the 

meeting : 

Note. — Members  of  the  Committee  will  observe  that  while 
the  rates  from  Baltimore  to  Atlanta  were  fixed  in  line  with  the 
rates  from  Louisville  to  Atlanta,  the  relation  as  between  the  several 
points  of  destination  in  the  South  on  business  from  the  East  are 

* fixed  according  to  the  New  York  rates,  and  after  the  New  York 
rates  are  established,  the  rates  from  other  Eastern  cities  are  based  on 
differentials.  It  is  necessary  to  observe  this  adjustment  in  fixing 

• new  rates  because  to  Chattanooga  the  Trunk  Line  differentials 


54 


are  applied,  while  to  Atlanta  the  South-Eastern  differentials 
apply.  The  Chairman’s  office  in  compiling  the  rates  for  final  pub- 
lication should,  therefore,  first  fix  the  Baltimore  rates  to  Atlanta 
and  then  fix  the  New  York  rates  to  Atlanta,  and  base  further 
calculations  on  the  New  York  rates.  Members  will  also  observe 
that  no  reduction  was  specified  from  Virginia  cities,  and  in  the 
absence  of  specific  instructions,  the  Secretary  does  not  understand 
the  rates  from  Virginia  cities  are  to  be  reduced. 

Secretary. 

Thereupon  and  in  pursuance  of  the  resolutions  adopted  at 
said  meeting,  the  Companies  parties  thereto  concurrently  published 
and  promulgated  printed  tariffs;  thus  establishing  rates  in  con- 
formity with  said  resolutions. 

Your  petitioner  alleges  that  the  said  Associations  and  the 
agreements  between  them,  and  the  actions  of  said  railroad  com- 
panies at  the  meeting  in  New  York,  amount  to  and  are  combina- 
tions or  conspiracies  which  directly  and  necessarily  extinguish 
competition  in  rates  between  otherwise  competing  railroads  engaged 
in  interstate  trade  or  commerce;  that  while  the  said  combinations 
do  not  result  in  a total  suppression  of  trade,  they  do  by  their  neces- 
sary operation  tend  to  restrain  interstate  trade  and  commerce  and 
to  create  a monopoly  in  such  trade  or  commerce,  and  deprive  the 
public  and  your  petitioner  from  the  advantages  that  would  flow 
from  free  competition  in  the  making  of  rates,  and  establish  and 
continue  the  discriminations  hereinbefore  complained  of. 

THE  MOTIVE  OF  THIS  PETITIONEE. 

The  complaints  made  by  the  petitioner  against  the  combina- 
tions heretofore  described  are  not  made  for  the  mere  purpose  of 
attacking  the  railroads  controlling  the  Southern  territory,  nor  for 
the  mere  purpose  of  preventing  violations  of  the  Anti-Trust  Law, 
but  are  made  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  the  Merchants,  Manu- 
facturers and  Commerce  of  the  Western  and  Northern  States  from 
rates  which  are  discriminatory  against  them  and  preferential  to 
competitors  in  the  Eastern  States,  and  seriously  damaging  to  the 
interests  of  the  Western  and  Northern  States. 

Your  petitioner  does  not  feel  that  it  would  be  warranted  in 
asking  the  President  to  read  in  this  petition  an  extended  statement 
of  the  facts  showing  such  preference  and  discrimination,  for  the 
reason  that  the  entire  subject  was  given  a most  careful  and  thor- 
ough examination  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  with 
an  opportunity  for  all  parties  concerned  to  submit  evidence  and  to 


55 


be  heard  by  argument,  and  its  decision  fully  sustaining  the  com- 
plaints of  the  petitioner  will  be  found  in  the  report  of  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  in  the  cases  entitled  “The  Freight 
Bureau  of  the  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce  vs.  The  Cincin- 
nati, New  Orleans  and  Texas  Pacific  Railway  Company,  et  al.,” 
and  “The  Chicago  Freight  Bureau  vs.  The  Louisville,  New  Albany 
and  Chicago  Railway  Company,  et  al.”  (Interstate  Commerce  Com- 
mission reports). 

A brief  statement,  however,  of  the  facts  found  by  the  Inter- 
state Commerce  Commission  is  pertinent  at  this  time,  and  justified 
by  the  vital  importance  to  the  petitioner  of  the  complaints  made 
herein. 

In  stating  the  complaints  made  in  the  cases  above  referred 
to,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  said: 

“The  complaints  in  these  cases,  which  were  heard  and  may  be 
disposed  of  together,  were  filed,  respectively,  by  the  Freight  Bhreau 
of  the  Cincinnati  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Chicago  Freight' 
Bureau.  The  former  will  hereinafter  be  referred  to  as  the  Cincin- 
nati case,  and  the  latter  as  the  Chicago  case.” 

“In  both  complaints,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  New  York,  Bos- 
ton and  contiguous  territory,  are  designated  ‘Eastern  Seaboard 
Territory’ : Knoxville  and  Chattanooga,  Tenn. ; Rome  and  Atlanta, 
Ga. : Birmingham,  Anniston  and  Selma,  Ala. ; Meridian,  Miss.,  and 
contiguous  territory,  ‘Southern  Territory’;  and  Cincinnati,  0.; 
Louisville,  Ky. ; Indianapolis  and  Evansville,  Ind.;  Chicago  and 
Cairo,  111. ; St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and  contiguous  territory,  ‘Central  Ter- 
ritory.’ These  designations  will  be  applied  in  this  opinion. 

“The  general  ground  of  complaint  in  the  Cincinnati  case  is 
that  the  rates  of  freight  established  by  the  defendant  carriers  from 
the  Eastern  Seaboard  and  Central  territories,  respectively  to  South- 
ern territory,  ‘unjustly  discriminate  in  favor  of  the  merchants  and 
manufacturers  whose  business  is  located  and  transacted  in  Eastern 
Seaboard  territory,  and  against  the  merchants  and  manufacturers 
whose  business  is  located  and  transacted  in  Cincinnati  and  other 
points  in  Central  territory.’  It  is  stated  that  ‘the  burden  of  the 
complaint  lies  against  the  relation  which  exists  between  the  cur- 
rent rates  of  freight  on  manufactured  articles  and  merchandise* 
(numbered  classes)  ‘from  Eastern  Seaboard  territory  to  Southern 
territory,  and  the  current  rates  of  freight  exacted  upon  like  com- 
modities when  shipped  from  Central  territory  to  the  South,  and 
against  the  unfair  basis  of  general  construction  of  the  tariffs  under 
consideration  whereby  the  rates  charged  for  transportation  of 


56 


commodities  classified  under  ‘‘numbered  classes”  bear  a much 
higher  percentage  relation  to  the  rates  from  New  York  than  do  the 
rates  on  commodities  enumerated  under  the  lettered  classes’  (food 
products  and  similar  heavy  traffic)  ; and  it  is  alleged  ‘that  this 
improper  relation  between  the  rates  has  the  effect  of  restraining 
and  impeding  the  growth  of  productive  industries  in  Central  terri- 
tory, and  encouraging  and  promoting  similar  industries  in  Eastern 
Seaboard  territory,  and  is  the  direct  result  of  an  agreement  estab- 
lished by  convention  between  the  officers  of  defendants,  whereby  in 
order  to  secure  stability  in  rates  and  to  prevent  competition  between 
the  lines  leading  respectively  from  the  Eastern  Seaboard  and  Cen- 
tral territories  to  the  South,  it  was  decided  to  secure  to  the  Eastern 
lines  and  Eastern  territory  the  traffic  in  merchandise  and  manu- 
factured articles,  and  to  the  Western  territory  the  traffic  in  food 
products  and  similar  heavy  commodities.’  ” 

In  the  course  cf  its  statement  of  its  conclusions,  the  Interstate 
Commerce  Commission  said : 

“The  reasonableness  in  themselves  of  the  rates  from  Central 
territory  is  a matter  material  to  the  issue  raised  by  the  charge  in 
both  cases,  that  the  relation  between  those  rates  and  the  Eastern 
rates  is  unjustly  prejudicial  to  Central  territory,  and  the  question 
is  directly  presented  in  the  Chicago  case  by  the  allegation  that  the 
rates  from  Cincinnati  and  other  Ohio  River  crossings  to  Southern 
territory  are  ‘unreasonably  high.’  Where  the  reasonableness  of 
rates  is  in  question,  comparison  may  be  made,  not  only  with  rates 
on  another  line  of  the  same  carrier,  but  also  with  those  on  the 
lines  of  other  and  distinct  carriers — the  value  of  the  comparison 
being  dependent  in  all  cases  upon  the  degree  of  similarity  of  cir- 
cumstances and  conditions  attending  the  transportation  for  which 
the  rates  compared  are  charged.  It  appears  from  the  tabular  state- 
ments in  our  findings  of  fact,  giving  all-rail  distances  and  class 
rates  from  Cincinnati  and  Chicago  in  Central  territory,  and  from 
New  York  and  other  Northeastern  cities,  to  points  in  Southern 
territory,  that  on  a mileage  basis  the  rates  from  the  former  (par- 
ticularly, those  on  the  higher  or  numbered  classes)  are  largely  in 
excess  of  those  from  the  latter.  For  the  purpose  of  illustration  the 
following  table  is  given,  which  shows  the  current  rates  on  goods  of 
Class  1 from  Cincinnati  and  Chicago  and  from  New  York  to  points 
named  in  Southern  territory,  and  what  the  rates  from  Cincinnati 
and  Chicago  would  be  on  the  basis  of  the  (all-rail)  mileage  rates 
from  New  York: 


57 


CURRENT  CLASS  1 RATES. 

Rates  on  Basis  of  Mileage  Rates  from  New  York. 


To 

From 

Cin’ti. 

Chic. 

N.  Y. 

Cin’ti. 

Chic. 

Knoxville  

76 

116 

100 

39 

78 

1 

Chattanooga  

. 76 

116 

114 

45 

79 

Rome  

107 

147 

114 

51 

83 

Atlanta  

107 

147 

114 

61 

95 

Mjeridian  

122 

134 

124 

62 

71 

Birmingham  

89 

119 

114 

54 

75 

Anniston  

107 

147 

114 

57 

85 

Selma  

108 

138 

114 

62 

78 

“The  excess  of  the  Class  1 

rates 

in  the  above  table  from  Cin- 

'tinnati  and  Chicago 

over  the 

New 

York  rates  from  a 

mileage 

standpoint  is,  as  follows : 

Ftoiu 

From 

To 

Cincinnati. 

Chicago. 

Knoxville  . . 

. 37 

38 

Chattanooga 

. 31 

37 

Rome  

. 56 

64 

Atlanta  . . . 

. 46 

52 

Meridian  . . 

. 60 

63 

Birmingham 

. 35 

44 

Anniston  . . 

. 50 

62 

Selma  

. 46 

60 

“As  to  the  other  numbered  classes  and  the  other  northeastern 

'Cities,  the  relation  or  difference  between  the  two  sets  of  rates  is  to 
a large  extent  substantially  the  same  as  shown  in  the  above  tables. 

*1  “Many  striking  disparities  in  rates  will  be  observed  on  an 

inspection  of  the  tabular  statements  of  rates  and  distances  in  our 
findings  of  facts,  and  particularly,  in  the  Class  1 rates  from  Chi- 
cago. on  the  one  hand,  and  Boston  and  New  York,  on  the  other — 
the  latter  two  cities  being  given  for  the  most  part  the  same  rates. 
For  example,  while  the  distance  from  Chicago  to  Chattanooga  is 
•595  miles,  and  from  Boston  and  New  York  respectively,  1,060  and 
847  miles,  the  rate  from  Chicago  is  116c.,  and  from  Boston  and 
New  York,  114c. ; and  while  the  distance  from  Chicago  to  Meridian, 
Miss.,  is  723  miles,  and  from  Boston  and  New  York,  respectively, 
1,355  and  1,142  miles,  the  rate  from  Chicago  is  134c.,  and  from 


58 


Boston  and  New  York,  124c.  Under  the  rate  last  named,  a shipper 
of  a car  load  of  25,000  lbs.  of  Class  1 goods  from  Boston  and  New 
York  to  Meridian  would  pay  $25.00  less  than  a shipper  of  a like  car 
load  from  Chicago,  notwithstanding  the  relative  proximity  of  the 
latter  city  to  the  common  point  of  destination.  (Up  to  March  16, 
1894,  the  rate  from  New  York  and  Boston  to  Meridian  was  114c.) 
Further  examples  of  similar  import  might  be  taken  from  the  tab- 
ular statements  of  rates  and  distances,  but  the  above  are  deemed 
sufficient.” 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  findings  of  fact,  the  Interstate  Com- 
merce Commission  adjusted  the  rates  from  Cincinnati  and  Chicago 
with  reference  to  the  rates  from  the  Eastern  cities  as  follows : 


FROM  CINCINNATI. 


To 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Knoxville  .... 

. . 53 

45 

37 

27 

22 

20 

Chattanooga  . . 

. . 60 

54 

40 

30 

24 

22 

Rome  

. . 75 

64 

54 

44 

34 

24 

Atlanta 

. . 86 

73 

60 

45 

35 

27 

Meridian  . . . . 

. . 114 

98 

80 

62 

49 

38 

Birmingham  . . 

..  87 

74 

60 

46 

36 

28 

Anniston  .... 

. . 86 

73 

60 

45 

35 

27 

Selma  

. . 108 

92 

78 

60 

48 

36 

FROM 

CHICAGO. 

To 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

Knoxville  .... 

. . 93 

79 

62 

44 

37 

32 

Chattanooga  . . 

. . 100 

88 

65 

47 

39 

34 

Rome  

. . 114 

97 

79 

61 

49 

38 

Atlanta  

. . 126 

107 

85 

62 

50 

39 

Meridian  

. . 114 

98 

82 

60 

47 

38 

Birmingham  . . 

. . Ill 

95 

72 

52 

44 

34 

Anniston  

. . 126 

107 

85 

62 

50 

39 

Selma  

..  128 

112 

89 

66 

53 

38 

(Note. — The  rates  from  Chicago  and  Cincinnati  to  Meridian 
are  made  substantially  the  same,  because  the  larger  portion  of  the 
haul  from  Chicago  is  in  Central  territory,  where  rates  are  lower.) 

In  making  the  above  order,  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion said : 


“An  order  will  be  issued  directing  the  defendants  engaged 
in  transporting  traffic  from  Chicago  and  Cincinnati  to  Southern 
territory  to  desist  from  charging  higher  rates  on  the  traffic  em- 
braced in  the  numbered  classes  from  those  cities,  respectively,  than 
those  in  the  two  preceding  tables,  and  to  make  all  the  necessary 
readjustments  of  their  tariffs.  These  rates  are  a conservative 
reduction  of  the  existing  rates,  and,  while  it  is  believed  they  will 
go  far  to  do  away  with  the  ‘undue  prejudice5  to  which  Central  terri- 
tory is  now  subjected,  they  are,  probably,  not  so  low  as  they  might 
be  made  if  fuller  and  more  accurate  data  were  accessible.  If  the 
rates  by  the  Eastern  Seaboard  lines  be  taken  as  the  standard  of 
comparison,  the  rates  in  these  tables  will  be  found  to  make  in  the 
main  due  allowance  for  the  estimated  effect  on  those  rates  of  water 
competition  via  the  Atlantic.  They  are  also  higher  than  the  pro- 
portions of  the  through  rates  from  Yew  York  via  Cincinnati  to 
Chattanooga,  Birmingham  and  Meridian,  allowed  for  the  hauls 
from  Cincinnati  to  those  points,  and  which  were  in  effect  for  a 
long  period  of  years ; and  they  yield  a rate  per  ton  per  mile  large  ly 
in  excess  of  the  reported  cost  per  ton  per  mile  of  freight  01  the 
roads  from  the  Ohio  south  (and  in  other  sections  of  the  country) 
and  much  above  the  average  of  their  receipts  per  ton  per  mile. 
(See  tables  in  statement  of  facts.)  They  are  it  seems  scarcely  nec- 
essary to  add,  prescribed  as  maximum  rates  and  are  not  intended 
to  be  prohibitory  of  such  lower  rates  as  the  carriers  interested  may 
find  to  be  just  and  reasonable.55 

Subsequently  the  action  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion was  reviewed  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case 
of  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  vs.  Cincinnati,  Yew  Orleans 
& Texas  Pacific  Bailway  Company,  167  U.  S.,  479,  in  which  case  it 
was  held  that: 

“Congress  has  not  conferred  upon  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission  the  legislative  power  of  prescribing  rates  either  maxi- 
mum, or  minimum,  or  absolute ; and  as  it  did  not  give  the  express 
power  to  the  Commission,  it  did  not  intend  to  secure  the  same 
result  indirectly  by  empowering  that  tribunal  to  determine  what  in 
reference  to  the  past  was  reasonable  and  just,  whether  as  maximum, 


6o 


minimum  or  absolute,  and  then  enable  it  to  obtain  from  the  courts 
a peremptory  order  that  in  the  future  the  railroad  companies 
should  follow  the  rates  thus  determined  to  have  been  in  the  past 
reasonable  and  just.” 

Since  that  decision  (1897),  the  railroad  companies  controlling 
the  Southern  territory  continued  in  effect  until  February  1,  1905, 
the  rates  declared  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  to  be 
unjust,-  preferential  and  discriminatory.  From  February  1, 
1905,  the  railroads  leading  from  Ohio  River  crossings,  and  also 
from  Eastern  cities  established  rates  in  accord  with  the  resolutions 
adopted  and  agreements  reached  at  the  meeting  held  in  New  York 
December  1st  and  2d,  1904,  a partial  detailed  statement  of  which  is 
hereinbefore  given  under  the  caption  of  “New  York  Agree- 
ment.” While  on  February  1,  1905,  the  rates  to  a number  of 
Southern  points  were  reduced  both  from  the  Ohio  River  crossings 
and  from  the  East,  the  same  relative  discrimination  is  still  main- 
tained. 

As  found  by  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  the  action 
of  the  illegal  combination  herein  described  is  greatly  to  the  damage 
of  the  commerce  of  the  Northern  and  Western  States;  but  such 
action  is  also  greatly  to  the  damage  of  the  commerce  of  the  South- 
ern States  bv  depriving  the  people  of  those  States  of  the  advantages 
that  would  flow  from  free  competition  of  independent  railroad 
lines,  leading  from  the  Eastern  and  Virginia  gateways  and  South 
Atlantic  ports  into  the  Southern  territory,  and  by  depriving  the 
people  of  the  Southern  States  of  the  advantages  that  would  flow 
from  free  competition  of  independent  railroad  lines,  leading  from 
the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  River  gateways  into  the  Southern 
territory. 


PRAYER  OF  PETITIONER. 


Wherefore  your  petitioner  respectfully  asks  that  you  will 
instruct  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  to  begin  pro- 
ceedings in  the  United  States  Court: 

1.  To  enjoin  the  Southern  Railway  Company  and  the 
Atlantic  Coast  Line  Company  from  acquiring  or  attempting  to 
acquire  further  stock  of  railroad  companies  in  the  Southern  terri- 
tory, and  from  voting  the  stock  which  they  now  hold  in  railroads 
other  than  the  stock  of  their  own  companies,  and  from  exercising 
or  attempting  to  exercise  any  control,  direction,  supervision  or 
influence  whatever  over  the  acts  and  doings  of  said  other  railway 
companies,  and  to  secure  such  other  relief  on  behalf  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  against  said  illegal  combinations,  conspiracies 
and  monopolies  as  the  law  and  equity  of  the  situation  demand. 

2.  To  institute  proceedings  in  equity  to  dissolve  the  said 
Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association,  and  Southeastern 
Freight  Association;  and  to  enjoin  the  companies  subscribers 
thereto,  and  all  and  each  of  them  from  further  agreeing,  combining, 
conspiring  and  acting  together  to  establish  and  maintain  rules, 
regulations  and  rates  for  carrying  freight  upon  their  several  lines 
of  railroad,  and  to  secure  such  other  relief  on  behalf  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  against  said  illegal  combinations,  conspiracies 
and  monopolies  as  the  law  and  equity  of  the  situation  demand. 

3.  To  enjoin  the  Southeastern  Mississippi  Valley  Association, 
and  the  Southeastern  Freight  Association  from  carrying  into  effect 
the  joint  agreements  entered  into  between  them,  and  from  con- 
tinuing to  agree,  combine,  conspire  and  act  together  to  establish, 
maintain  rules,  regulations  and  rates  for  carrying  freight  upon  the 
several  lines  of  railroads  whose  companies  are  directly  or  indirectly 
parties  to  said  agreement,  and  to  secure  such  other  relief  on  behalf 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  against  said  illegal  contracts, 
combinations,  conspiracies  and  monopolies  as  the  law  and  equity  of 
the  situation  demand. 


4.  To  enjoin  the  companies  parties  to  the  meeting  in  New 
York  City  from  carrying  into  effect  the  agreements  entered  into  at 
said  meeting,  and  from  continuing  to  agree,  combine,  conspire  and 
act  together  to  establish  and  maintain  rules,  regulations  and  rates 
for  carrying  freight  upon  their  several  lines  of  railroad,  and  to 
secure  such  other  relief  on  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  United  States 
against  said  illegal  combination,  conspiracy  and  monopoly  as  the 
law  and  equity  of  the  situation  demand. 

Respectfully  submitted, 


The  Receivers’  and  Shippers’  Association  of  Cincinnati. 


By  R.  H.  West,  President. 

E.  E.  Williamson,  Commissioner. 


Rufus  B.  Smith, 
Henry  T.  Hunt, 


Counsel- 


Cincinnati,  Ohio,  June  1,  1905. 


rf> 


I 

I 


